Third Edition Renaissance

[assault]

3 hours ago, pinecone said:

I've been backing a Kickstarter that is trying to redo Champions building up from 3rd. I am hoping it works out.

 

Champions Now?

 

Have you been following the playtest drafts? They look pretty good, although the whole thing might end up being buried under Ron's vanity rants, and there are a couple of quirks that might be deal breakers for some people.

 

The result isn't much like 3e though.

[Duke Bushido]

"loyal" could be disadvantageous.  After all, if it's taken specifically as a disadvantage, then I feel compelled to focus on the downside:

 

If the hero is trapped, beaten, and bleeding, with urgent news for his teammates or the police,  the disadvantageously loyal follower isn't likely to leave his side to either pass on the information or summon help, but instead stay and try to bandage his internal injuries or comfort him as he dies. 

 

It's still fiercely loyal, but something of a disadvantage. 

 

Granted, that's just one thing out of hundreds of examples you could have used, so I am not trying to say there are no "advantageous" disadvantages (as I shudder remembering Davien trying to use "nymphomania" as a disadvantage for a sidekick (an adult sidekick, to be sure!)).  All I am saying is to keep in mind that if the player took it as a disadvantage, then discuss with him first that this means a focus on the "downside" of whatever that trait is. 

 

For example, I thought marrying a woman with OCD tendencies would mean that my house would better-organized than it is.  Turns out cleaning is almost impossible for her without direction: she can't decide where to start, where to go next, or when the job is actually "done enough to be done." 

 

She's not a slob, by any means, but organizing anything is something she just can't do without guidance. 

[DreadDomain]

3 hours ago, assault said:

 

Champions Now?

 

They look pretty good, although the whole thing might end up being buried under Ron's vanity rant

 

there are a couple of quirks that might be deal breakers for some people.

 

The result isn't much like 3e though.

Even if I have supported the KS, I  haven't followed the development progress.

 

Can you elaborate on the 3 points above?

[pinecone]

4 hours ago, assault said:

 

Champions Now?

 

Have you been following the playtest drafts? They look pretty good, although the whole thing might end up being buried under Ron's vanity rants, and there are a couple of quirks that might be deal breakers for some people.

 

The result isn't much like 3e though.

That's the one. I am a little worried about the "ego" thing. But I'll wait for the finished product before I freak. Lol. My health is real poor, so I limit my activity. So I have not been tracking the progress. I really do not like 6th, and can just stand Complete. So I hope something based off of 3rd will bring back the magic.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've got the beginnings of a 3rd edition template for Hero Designer...

 

Creating a template to use the 3rd edition costs for Powers, Skills, and Disadvantages is the easy part.  

 

Regarding the differences in Reduced END Cost... It's theoretically possible to generate a 3rd edition legal Champions character using HD.  Doing so requires a little bit of hand-massaging of the character file.  When buying levels of Reduced END Cost on a Power, you need to do two things: in HD, manually add a cost multiplier to the Power, equal to 1 + 0.25 per level of reduced END, and then edit the character's XML file (after backing it up, of course) to manually set the Power's APPEREND attribute (HDDocs p. 45) in XML.  

 

You'd similarly (manually) apply cost multipliers to Enhanced Senses and Disadvantages, based on how many of them your character has.  

 

It's only partially complete, and I may have to start it over again.  If anyone is interested in seeing it... it may be a week or so before I can dig it up.  I wouldn't mind help with it, also. 

[Pariah]

19 hours ago, assault said:

 

Champions Now?

 

Have you been following the playtest drafts? They look pretty good, although the whole thing might end up being buried under Ron's vanity rants, and there are a couple of quirks that might be deal breakers for some people.

 

The result isn't much like 3e though.

 

This is pretty much my assessment so far, too. CNow is what got me thinking about 3rd Ed again, though, so that's a good thing. And I'm well aware that the finished product in such cases often bears little to no resemblance to the beta version.

[DreadDomain]

3 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

This is pretty much my assessment so far, too. CNow is what got me thinking about 3rd Ed again, though, so that's a good thing. And I'm well aware that the finished product in such cases often bears little to no resemblance to the beta version.

Ok, I am obviously not paying attention to CNow. Was there a link sent for a Beta version?

[Ninja-Bear]

So I was looking at building a T-porter in 3rd so the question is then How would you be able to cancel the effect of velocity in 3rd? It’s easy in 6th-it’s an adder. (And possibly in 5th too)?

[assault]

25 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

So I was looking at building a T-porter in 3rd so the question is then How would you be able to cancel the effect of velocity in 3rd? It’s easy in 6th-it’s an adder. (And possibly in 5th too)?

 

First: try not to build up too much velocity!

 

A bit of flight or gliding works wonders. Acrobatics is nice too.

 

Of course, most teleporters can't just cancel velocity.

[assault]

On 1/9/2019 at 12:18 PM, DreadDomain said:

Even if I have supported the KS, I  haven't followed the development progress.

 

Can you elaborate on the 3 points above?

 

Short version: no.

 

If I do so, I would end up pulling stuff out of context, and I don't even have the latest draft, let alone the finished product. I don't want to give a wrong impression.

 

There is a good game in there. It's streamlined and there are some important changes, but an experienced Hero player would pick them up quickly.

[Duke Bushido]

Okay, this is the part I was talking about at the very bottom  (that would probably make more sense if I liked Doctor Who):

 

I wanted to have put this in at the very top, but I didn't think about it until I was done.  Not having posted it yet, I still had the option to do so, so I will in just a minute so that it's here, at the very top:

 

First and foremost:

 

This isn't argumentative or dismissive or personally directed at _anyone_; it's for _everyone_ who hasn't really had the chance to enjoy the old stuff, and I'm only putting it here to take advantage of a question asked by Ninja-Bear by using that question as an opening into what turned out to be a much larger look at the philosophy and feel of the old stuff.  So let me up front say "Thank you, Ninja-Bear, for this opportunity."

 

Thank you, Ninja-Bear, for this opportunity.

 

There we are; all done, courteous and fun.  I'm done now, but here's the stuff I wrote before I wrote this lovely closing:

 

 

 

By declaring it at the time you buy the power: your t-port is "velocity-free."

 

If you want the option of doing it either way, use a multipower (personal suggestion) or, since it's still legitimate in 3e, an Elemental Control.

 

Now let me justify this:

 

 There is in those older editions no rule that says you can't determine your facing at the pop-out end of a T-port, and no adder or advantage to buy so you can, so it stands to reason that nothing prevents you from choosing your orientation when you T-port.  Frankly, given that you can do it with _all_ other movement powers, it'd be a real shank in the eye to suddenly add "except for tele porters,' wouldn't it?  That being the case, it occurred to us early on that a character can teleport so that he is moving "up" with that velocity.

 

So there's no reason that you can't teleport so that you're moving up, and when gravity has neutralized your momentum, *pop*  and there you go.  Still two miles in the air and can't teleport that far even with your NCM?  Do it repeatedly.  And for the first couple of times it came up, that's how we handled it.  Lots of fun at first (Oh, I must concentrate!  Must time this perfectly! etc, etc-- exciting bit of role-playing, the first couple of times)

 

Given that this is rather irritating and slows things up a lot (hilariously funny, but after a the first couple of times, the drag on game time does get irritating) we just ruled "declare that you can or can't when you buy T-port."  The take away here isn't the idea of "how to solve this problem with T-port," or even "you don't need a two-page write up fix this."

 

 

The thing to remember when we get caught up in all the "freedom"  (not derisive; I'm really floundering for grammar as my eldest daughter is in the shower giving us all a concert. Not only is her taste in music beyond questionable, there's something about being in the shower that makes her almost exactly eight-and-a-half times louder) of the newer editions is that super hero concepts have _not_ changed.  

 

To put it more simply, let's take a moment to remember that all 4e did was gather each and every rule or interpretation from _everything_ that had been written so far and put it all into one binder.  Then we played for twenty years.

 

Then Steve wrote 5e, which included rules and rulings of interactions, etc--

 

I remember shortly after I read my copy commenting that "it reads like I just paid a boatload of dollars for someone else's house rules."

 

And I did.  I did exactly that.  At first, I confess, I meant that derisively, as I was extremely frustrated.  I wanted something new and wonderful, and I got "how to do shape shift for only two hundred points or so."

 

But then I thought about it.  It's what we do.  It's what we _all_ do-- no.  I'm sorry.  It's what we all _did_, prior to the modern day internet.  We all had house rules.  We all ran into situations that weren't expressly covered  by the rules.  We made rulings: sometimes on the fly, to come back and change later, sometimes interrupting the game for a few minutes, or character generation, or whatever.  But whatever happened, we were making, by default, a house rule, because there was no published rule.  The example I have given most consistently is vehicles, because I really believe that was an early issue for a _lot_ of us old farts: it was a couple of years before there were "official" vehicle rules (Champions II, if I remember correctly).  So did we not drive?  Did we not have crime mobiles or Army Jeeps or space ships or whatever might go with our adventures?

 

No.  Of course not.  We made rules.  In fact, to this _day_ I use those home-brewed vehicle rules because I like them _better_ than the official ones.  First and foremost, they require _no_ special rules.  You make a vehicle on a character sheet, using the same exact rules you'd use for making a character.  Frankly, I think this does a _much_ better service to the "universality" of the basic rules than does an entire set of special rules for this special circumstance, etc.

 

The thing that I dismissed (at first) as someone else's house rules is _not_ a bad thing, on it's own.  It just ensures that I am making characters the same way _you_ are making characters.  It ensures that you can take a character from _your_ table and play him it _my_ table.

 

Let's not take a minute to realize that it's never going to happen, or wonder why, given that we don't know where each other lives and likely it's on opposite ends of the continent from each other, it's remotely important that we are playing the exact same way.  Let's not consider that no two GMs are going to rule the same on every subject, or even allow the same bits of the actual published rules.

 

But I digress:

 

After 5 came re-5 ("we have the technology.  We can make it bigger, heavier, bulkier than before"), then two books worth of 6, then a whole book of martial arts, then _two_ whole books of "more rules when these two things combine or collide or interact in any way" and talk of a third book featuring more of the same for new combinations or situations.

 

Or we post in the "ask Steve" section-- don't get me wrong; I think it's damned generous of him to give of himself in that way-- and the minute he speaks  BAM!  New rule.

 

 

 

What did we do _yesterday_, before Steve said "do this?"  When  Joey GM or Peter Player posted this question last week in the discussion forums, what was my response?  How did I suggest handling this?  How did the other folks suggest handling this?  What did I do last summer, when that came up in my campaign?

 

So...  I have to change now, right?  There's an official ruling on this, and eventually it will end up in another tome of official rules, if Steve can find the time and the money to get it put together...

 

 

So now we have a question to ask:

What do we do without a rule?

 

There's been a steady progression, as the "core rules" become more and more complex, as they delve deeper into the minutiae and micro-managing of every possibility of the game.  That progression seems to slowly be leading toward the growth of the idea of "you can't do that because there's no rule that says you can."

 

Once upon a time, you could do it because there was no rule that said you couldn't.  (not the Teleport / velocity thing: there _is_ a rule (p62, Champions 2e) that says you can't remove velocity.  I mean this in a general sense).

 

Now I have _never_ met Steve, or Bruce, or _any_ of the big names in the history of HERO.  Not _once_.  Given my age and my status and my life in general, I don't think I even have to _look_ at a limb to state as irrefutable fact that I likely never, ever will.  But I'm absolutely _certain_ that there is not a one of them that wouldn't, even as voluminous as the rules are today, who intended us to get to a point of "you can't do that because there is no rule for it."

 

 

There is a word that escapes me right now-- probably because of the horribly off-key concert that won't get out my thinking space--  that perfectly sums up my disappointment with 5e (though I would play it a thousand times before I considered 6):  each time you say "this aspect can be done thusly" or "you can add this feature for x amount," you are not adding a new thing.  You are taking away a thing that was always there.

 

 

Oh--

 

you know what?  Let me just scroll up and add it at the beginning, where it belongs.

 

Thanks, NB!  You're a gentleman and a scholar.

 

 

Duke

[DreadDomain]

48 minutes ago, assault said:

 

First: try not to build up too much velocity!

 

A bit of flight or gliding works wonders. Acrobatics is nice too.

 

Of course, most teleporters can't just cancel velocity.

 Fair enough. I myself only just discovered (a few posts above) there was a beta document. I suppose if I knew where to find that document, it would answer some of my questions.

[DreadDomain]

Ok, hopefully I didn't mess thing up too much. I have attempted to recreate Spider-Man using 3E. I have based him on the 6E version that I have instead of starting from scratch. Just a few observations:

 

1) In practice 6E secondary attributes are easier/more flexible but I still very much like the idea of figured characteristics.

2) I absolutely do not miss the movement in Hexes/Inches. Meters make so much more sense and I hope against hope that Champions Now would use them (but I know it won't)

3) I generally find the Power construction system much better in 6E (or 5E/5ER) but I still regret some of the decisions made. I would have kept Gliding, Transfer, Instant Change, etc instead of incorporating them with other powers.

4) I much prefer the skills in later editions

 

All in all, Champions 3E is an impressive game (especially for its time) but I would not go back to it (well, never really was with it since I started with 4E) as I do not feel it is as flexible or coherent as later editions. To be fair, my ideal edition of Champions would be somewhere 5ER and 6E with a good dash of 4E with the production value of Champions 6E in a format akin to Champions 4E or Champions Complete.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Oy vey! Transfer is an absolute pain in 6e (CC). I’ve never really used the power before but since I’m helping my brother to do FHC with updates spells from Fantasy 4th.  I had to deal with it. 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Isn't 6E Transfer just Aid linked to Drain?  I seem to remember it being cheaper too. 

[pinecone]

I may have already said this, but I think it was on rpg.net...so hopefully I am not repeating myself. Game systems can be divided in several ways, and one of those ways is commonly "Permissive", and "Non permissive". So what does that mean? I'll use a couple of examples, D&D is a non permissive rule set, that means that the answer to "can I do this" is no, unless a rule says otherwise. Champions is/was a permissive rule set, the answer is supposed to default to "Sure, why not?" unless a rule says you can not.

 

So I've been playing Champs since it came out, so thats a lot of rule sets, and rulings to plow through. But I was amazed when 5 "allowed" you to multi attack, and people were not sure if that was good, when you always could. And I had seen it used all the time. It's a permissive rule set, so is there a rule that says you can't? If not "sure, why not?".

 

The answer to almost any question about capability should be "You're a freaking Super hero! Of course you can do that" My take on 5th and 6th is that it is written from a non permissive mind set, it often goes on to tell you the "right" way to build a power, and marks all other ways as "wrong". That is not the Hero way...IMHO...Lol

[DreadDomain]

2 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Isn't 6E Transfer just Aid linked to Drain?  I seem to remember it being cheaper too. 

You are correct. I am not saying the 6E way is wrong. I just prefer the aesthetic of the previous build.

 

I prefer:

Transfer: Transfer END 4d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 60 CP 

 

over

Transfer: Drain END 4d6 (40 Active Points); Unified

Power (-.) (total cost: 32 CP) plus Aid END 4d6 (standard effect:

same roll as Drain dice), Trigger (when character uses Drain,

activating Trigger takes no time, Trigger immediately automatically

resets; +1) (48 Active Points); Only Aid Self (-1), Linked (-.),

Unified Power (-.). Real Cost: 51 CP

 

and

Instant Change: Switch one set of clothes for another. Real Cost: 3 CP

 

over

Instant Change: Cosmetic Transform 1d6 (standard

effect: switch one set of clothes for another), Trigger (changing

clothing is a Zero Phase Action, Trigger automatically resets;

+.) (5 Active Points); Limited Target (the character’s current

clothing; -.). Real Cost: 3 CP

 

 

[assault]

34 minutes ago, pinecone said:

I'll use a couple of examples, D&D is a non permissive rule set, that means that the answer to "can I do this" is no, unless a rule says otherwise.

 

A significant factor in the OSR revival of earlier, permissive, editions of D&D.

[Doc Democracy]

8 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Given that this is rather irritating and slows things up a lot (hilariously funny, but after a the first couple of times, the drag on game time does get irritating) we just ruled "declare that you can or can't when you buy T-port."  The take away here isn't the idea of "how to solve this problem with T-port," or even "you don't need a two-page write up fix this."

 

I think, once you have seen the game effect of working it, I would have ruled that the player can decide to 

  (1) simply take extra time on the TP to shed the velocity (that is in effect what you are doing but in shorthand)

  (2) TP in real time and shed the velocity as heat (1d6 NND, area effect for every x" of velocity shed)

 

Those provide opportunity for roleplay and heroism without too much in the way of disrupting the flow of the game...

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

You are correct. I am not saying the 6E way is wrong. I just prefer the aesthetic of the previous build.

 

I prefer:

Transfer: Transfer END 4d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 60 CP 

 

over

Transfer: Drain END 4d6 (40 Active Points); Unified

Power (-.) (total cost: 32 CP) plus Aid END 4d6 (standard effect:

same roll as Drain dice), Trigger (when character uses Drain,

activating Trigger takes no time, Trigger immediately automatically

resets; +1) (48 Active Points); Only Aid Self (-1), Linked (-.),

Unified Power (-.). Real Cost: 51 CP

 

and

Instant Change: Switch one set of clothes for another. Real Cost: 3 CP

 

over

Instant Change: Cosmetic Transform 1d6 (standard

effect: switch one set of clothes for another), Trigger (changing

clothing is a Zero Phase Action, Trigger automatically resets;

+.) (5 Active Points); Limited Target (the character’s current

clothing; -.). Real Cost: 3 CP

 

 

 

I actually have no preference on either unless you are writing the whole thing out on the character sheet, THEN my preference is for the simple version...

[Pariah]

11 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

You are correct. I am not saying the 6E way is wrong. I just prefer the aesthetic of the previous build.

 

I prefer:

Transfer: Transfer END 4d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 60 CP 

 

over

Transfer: Drain END 4d6 (40 Active Points); Unified

Power (-.) (total cost: 32 CP) plus Aid END 4d6 (standard effect:

same roll as Drain dice), Trigger (when character uses Drain,

activating Trigger takes no time, Trigger immediately automatically

resets; +1) (48 Active Points); Only Aid Self (-1), Linked (-.),

Unified Power (-.). Real Cost: 51 CP

 

and

Instant Change: Switch one set of clothes for another. Real Cost: 3 CP

 

over

Instant Change: Cosmetic Transform 1d6 (standard

effect: switch one set of clothes for another), Trigger (changing

clothing is a Zero Phase Action, Trigger automatically resets;

+.) (5 Active Points); Limited Target (the character’s current

clothing; -.). Real Cost: 3 CP

 

 

 

This. This so very much.

[Pariah]

And I've said this before, but my favorite edition of Champions is 4th (BBB). Much more flexible than 3rd, much less complicated than 5th or 6th.

[Durzan Malakim]

I like any edition of Champions I actually get to play. To me the differences between editions are like the differences between sports cars. Yes, an Alpha Romeo T33/2 Stradale Prototipo 1967 is different than a Tesla Model S, but either one is a radically different experience to driving the D&D minivan.

 

Champions third edition was my introduction to super heroic gaming, and I have fond memories of it, but the people I play with run sixth edition/Complete. It's still a sports car even if the user manual is really, really long, and I'm not always sure how to refill the continuing fuel charge.

[Duke Bushido]

17 hours ago, pinecone said:

 

The answer to almost any question about capability should be "You're a freaking Super hero! Of course you can do that" My take on 5th and 6th is that it is written from a non permissive mind set, it often goes on to tell you the "right" way to build a power, and marks all other ways as "wrong". That is not the Hero way...IMHO...Lol

 

 

Thank you for summing it up so much more succinctly than I ever could.  And yes!  I agree _totally_ with that.

[John Desmarais]

21 hours ago, Durzan Malakim said:

I like any edition of Champions I actually get to play.

 

I feel ya.I run 6th these days (I always run the "current" version as its the one my players can easily go buy for themselves if inclined) but I'll gladly play whatever version someone want to run.  (Although, I've been strongly contemplating doing a one-shot with some of my old gamer friends using 3rd edition, just for the nostalgia.  The recent Bundle of Holding renewed my interest in 3rd.)