Jump to content

What's your least favorite version of Champions?


dsatow

What is your least favorite version of Champions?  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your least favorite version of Champions?

    • Champions I, II, III
      14
    • Champions 4th Ed (BBB)
      1
    • Champions 5th Ed (FRED)
      4
    • Champions 6th Ed
      13


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That is the intent, with full rules, monsters, a setting, spells, etc.  You will not need anything except my books to play it, but you'll benefit from having the original Hero books as reference for more fiddly and specific things if you want them.

 

Sounds awesome, I can hardly wait to check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That is the intent, with full rules, monsters, a setting, spells, etc.  You will not need anything except my books to play it, but you'll benefit from having the original Hero books as reference for more fiddly and specific things if you want them.

Sounds very good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Sorry Duke but I swore that Luchedo Hero And PS 238 are self contained games.

No; forgive me. 

 

As I mentioned, I'd been awake way too long.  I was confusing Lucha HERO with the Western HERO book I'd been working ONN for umpteen hours.

 

Lucha is indeed a complete game. 

 

Sorry about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I still think the format should have always been "x Champions" but ICE was in charge when that naming format was established and now its part of the brand.

 

You know, I never thought about it before, but I actually think I like that a lot better myself:

 

Lucha Champions; Western Champions, etc--

 

Though "Hero" does come more easily to mind. :(  "Champions" implies some really lofty ideals that might not work so good in a heroic-level campaign universe, particularly a more-or-less realistic one.

 

Still, I _do_ like the reference to the Champions roots.  And honestly, that is in itself likely why "Champions" wasn't used: 4e was marketing itself as a universal system.  What better way to promote your actual system than to name the games after it.

 

 

The only problem is the super-hero roots.  There's not much diversity and heroic levels.     I've wrestled with that for a long time.   No secret that Western HERO was my favorite sourcebook, and it inspired a _lot_ of various campaigns over the years.  I even mentioned once wanting to create a supplemental book for it, but upon reading GURPS: Old West, well....   there was no way to top that! :lol:  

 

 

I never quite let it go, though.  As I got older and didn't have as much time and resources to devote to raw research, I've picked up other well-done sourcebooks with the intention of formally adapting them to HERO (4e, obviously, as that seems to be where Western HERO was born and died).  It kills me how much detail goes into weapons and equipment in other games, the subtle nuances and differences between similar-but-not-identical items.   Even the odds of jamming or failure based on (depending on flavor) historically-accurate data, or movie-screen-derived data for high-adventure campaigns.

 

And at the bottom end of the HERO system-- the Heroic campaign-- almost none of that is possible. it's like the difference between pixels and Triscuits.   :(

 

Still, I don't give up hope.  One day I will have the personal sourcebook I want, even if I never play another Western genre game (the younger folks aren't really interested, and my older folks are happy with other genres (and I may have burnt a couple of them out on the Old West ;) ).

 

And when it's done--

 

well, I'll still have toddbannister's "Omnibus Edition" cover to wrap it in.  I can't thank you enough for that, toddbannister! :D

 

 

 

Duke

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, you can do it in Hero, but honestly how many players really are gonna care that much?  I mean you can design weapons down to miniscule differences like "jams more often in wet weather" or "may chainfire" but unless its something really significant its not likely to be something anyone is interested in actually playing rather than building a simulation of.  I'm kinda running into this dilemma with my Field Guide I'm almost finished; how much detail and specificity really is required to play a game and how much is just fun in design?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Eh, you can do it in Hero, but honestly how many players really are gonna care that much?  I mean you can design weapons down to miniscule differences like "jams more often in wet weather" or "may chainfire" but unless its something really significant its not likely to be something anyone is interested in actually playing rather than building a simulation of.  I'm kinda running into this dilemma with my Field Guide I'm almost finished; how much detail and specificity really is required to play a game and how much is just fun in design?

 

 

totally get what you're saying; really I do: I've been dealing with it-- on and off-- for some years with regards to weapons and equipment for Heroic-level games, and Westerns in particular.

 

But there _are_ some things that players care about: damage vs cost is probably the most common, followed closely by conceal ability vs accuracy (I nice long barrel and a heavy frame tend to add accuracy, but make it a lot harder to slip into a coat pocket).

 

The other things-- breaking, jamming, etc-- players aren't so concerned as long as those numbers are a low as they can afford to buy.

 

Then you come up with a list of twenty-four pistols are staggeringly-varied sizes, weights, etc---  but they all do the exact same damage.  I mean, at that level in HERO terms, pretty much everything from a .28 to a .60 does identical damage.   It's kind of disappointing.  Do you _need_ a historically-accurate list of weapons and when they became available, etc, to enjoy the game?   No; of course you don't.  But then you end up with a bit less "color" for your character:  "I remember that feller; yeah.  Had a Henry.  Thought it was a carbine, at first, but then I seent  he'd sawed it down a bit.  Fair nice job, too.  He loved that thing.  Whole time he was in the corner, whay I reckon he spent 40 minutes going over it, tightening and cleaning it.  Reckon he knows who delicate those things are out here in the scrub.  He was packing' a Navy, too.  .38, it looked like.   He cleant on that'n a while, too-- 'nuff fer me ta notice it were a brass strap.  Figured he was maybe a 'Reb, and when the the dust settled maybe he ha'int no home to get ta.  Weren't though.  He got done eatin, swallered his drink, wrapped that Henry back up like it were his own papoose.  Dropped that brass strap Navy low on his hip and skittered on out.  Come by my good eye, too-- right close like.   Young feller.  Real young.  Less'n he could ride and shoot in pinned britches, he weren't never no Reb!  Why, he'd'a been twenty years older to see any a' that...."

 

Or, since in HERO terms, there's no reason to be particularly specific with your iron:

 

"Hmm.  Feller with two guns.  Yessir, I seen plenty' them come by...."

 

 

Yeah, okay, you can add the flavor, certainly.  But there's no real _drive_ to differentiate your equipment built-in to the system.

 

Thing is there _should_ be.  If you really pay attention to the base-model character sheet (4e and prior.  Well, 5e had base Characteristics, too, and they didn't really change their starting values), then the damage listed on the "real world weapons" charts all seem a bit low (assuming you're _not_ using hit locations, that is).  Re-working _that_ list does allow for a _small_ bit of variety where it should be, but again: it's a _small_ bit. :(

 

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to make a gun-centric story.  It is simply that weapons are a great place to highlight the loss of granularity at lower power levels.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did end up using reloading manuals to check damage and compared it to Kevin Dockery’s The Armory (Second Edition) and figured out a WW2 example. An M-1 Garand does 2D6+1, and can do Armor Piercing’wiyhnthe right (black tip) ammunition. Using The Data from an RCBS reloading manual, we figured out that a 7.7mm Japanese Type 99 bolt action would do 2.5D6, and had AP ammunition as well, where the 6.5mm Japanese Type 38 bolt action would do 2D6-1 and had no AP  loading.  So there was some differentiations once you entered the smokeless era. Differences between bolt action and semi- auto, though are not well addressed by HERO IMO. 

 

For a fantasy realm, I like the “Golf Bag” approach to equipment. I would think that it would almost demand difference due to race, strength, and fighting style. Some people will appreciate the nuance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that the way to differentiate guns would be to build little adjuncts to the main power (killing attack) rather than trying to change/amend the main power.

 

I like the idea of a gun having more "stopping power" by giving it additional KB or a slight TK boost to push someone back.  

 

I like the idea of a gun with shock having a bit of NND.

 

I like the idea of a gun with a reputation "possibly the most powerful handgun in the world" giving added PRE.

 

This might do far more to provide colour than other systems can manage.  ?

 

Doc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Differences between bolt action and semi- auto, though are not well addressed by HERO IMO. 

 

I agree, there are minor differences (single action revolver vs double action cap and ball vs cartridge) that could be simulated but require builds to do so.  And I think that's what Bushido is trying to get at.  It can be done with minor things, like "you cannot do multiple attack maneuvers with this gun" and misfire rolls, but it requires a bit of work and it starts turning into block o' text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nostalgia for 1st to 3rd, but IMO they needed a lot added to them to make them playable for more than just basic combat - for instance, skills.  Martial Arts maneuvers.  Stuff like that.

 

While I understand the aggravation with 5E's (and then 6E's) rules bloat and general dryness, I temper that with the recollection of what things were like just before DOJ took over Hero Games and 5E came out.  Hero was dying, and like it or not, 5E helped revive it.  And to be honest, one of my favorite Champions campaigns I've ever run was played in 5th edition.  (Another favorite was run in 4th edition.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I always thought that the way to differentiate guns would be to build little adjuncts to the main power (killing attack) rather than trying to change/amend the main power.

 

I like the idea of a gun having more "stopping power" by giving it additional KB or a slight TK boost to push someone back.  

 

I like the idea of a gun with shock having a bit of NND.

 

I like the idea of a gun with a reputation "possibly the most powerful handgun in the world" giving added PRE.

 

This might do far more to provide colour than other systems can manage.  ?

 

Doc

 

 

Definitely, in our case we added a bit of knock back for Shotgun slug rounds, and a plus one stun modifier for the M1911A1 pistol.  But the pluses on presence attacks due to reputation is a nice bit of color. 

 

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I agree, there are minor differences (single action revolver vs double action cap and ball vs cartridge) that could be simulated but require builds to do so.  And I think that's what Bushido is trying to get at.  It can be done with minor things, like "you cannot do multiple attack maneuvers with this gun" and misfire rolls, but it requires a bit of work and it starts turning into block o' text.

 

Block of text it is, then. Having wide experience with firearms, , I am amazed out ancestors put up with The unreliability of cap and ball revolvers. Flintlocks are

more Portable and IMO slightly more robust, and even the early pin fires had a more reliable ignition. But yes, adding those bonuses and limitation (including availability of the correct ammo. ) probably need to be statted out, giving the players a reason to pick or favor weapons as our ancestors, or fictional protagonists did. 

 

Weapons are constructed to fill jobs jobs dictated by the fighting style or doctrine the inventing culture thought necessary. Spears, swords and firearms are products of their culture and limitations, and they deserve that detail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Weapons are constructed to fill jobs jobs dictated by the fighting style or doctrine the inventing culture thought necessary. Spears, swords and firearms are products of their culture and limitations, and they deserve that detail. 

 

You missed a little clause on the end there, I think.  ", if that adds to the fun of the game"

 

As with everything else, there is a point where more accuracy increases the admin overhead to such a point that no-one wants to play the game.  Some games make a feature of this (I am looking at you Chivalry and Sorcery, among others) and some groups absolutely prefer it if their gameplay focuses there.  Others will absolutely hate it.  So I think it is a decent additional colour thing and belongs in a complete game where the focus might be here but it should not be seen as something needed everywhere and I would be concerned were it to be in the main rules where it would add an additional layer of bullet-proof-ness.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well and paper vs metal cartridges and so on.  A good infantryman in the early 19th century could get off 4 rounds a minute with a musket or early rifle, which is over a turn reload time (basica;ly fire and then it becomes a spear/club in close combat).  So it does make a pretty big difference at the larger side, but if you start statting out like, a Schofield vs a Walker Colt, then its a bit more subtle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

You missed a little clause on the end there, I think.  ", if that adds to the fun of the game"

 

As with everything else, there is a point where more accuracy increases the admin overhead to such a point that no-one wants to play the game.  Some games make a feature of this (I am looking at you Chivalry and Sorcery, among others) and some groups absolutely prefer it if their gameplay focuses there.  Others will absolutely hate it.  So I think it is a decent additional colour thing and belongs in a complete game where the focus might be here but it should not be seen as something needed everywhere and I would be concerned were it to be in the main rules where it would add an additional layer of bullet-proof-ness.

 

Doc

Probably true, but I come from the C&S side of things, and don’t have fun with the  low crunch, low realism games. Not a “storyteller” gamer. More of a travel & Exploration gamer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well and paper vs metal cartridges and so on.  A good infantryman in the early 19th century could get off 4 rounds a minute with a musket or early rifle, which is over a turn reload time (basica;ly fire and then it becomes a spear/club in close combat).  So it does make a pretty big difference at the larger side, but if you start statting out like, a Schofield vs a Walker Colt, then its a bit more subtle.

It effected tactics definitely. I the late 18th Century, it was three rounds a minute, using paper cartridges in smoothbore muskets and some rifles,  two full turns to reload). Using that on the battle field gave use the thin red line with massed fire upon command of an officer, and on the other side the independent fire at targets of opportunity, then retreat Into the woods to reload of colonial skirmishes. 

 

By the Civil War, percussion caps and the Minie’ ball reduced loading times to 4-5 times a minute. However, cavalry revolvers and carbines pioneering metallic cartridges traded followed X number of phases shooting for Y turns reloading. The lessons of The Civil War propagated to Europe Where the Breech-loading Dreyse rifle significantly reduced loading times and depending of how you judge  reloading single shot rifles, can be a shot per phase or a shot every other phase. But more importantly allowed reloading prone or in cover. Against the Austrians and their accurate but slow Lorenz muzzle loaders, did not fare well and the massed line of infantry slowly faded.  The obvious advantage of the breech-loader gave way to the Magazine Rifle, followed closely by Manlicher’s stripper clip, to the point, where the granularity of Hero’s action system can no longer distinguish between a bolt action and a semi-auto.  But with each advance, the requirement of masses of closed ranked troops, gave way to the increasing tactical capability of the individual infantryman.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And its not just firearms; melee weapons can be given greater granularity as well: weapon size, mass, how big the striking head is, leverage, etc.  I actually have a lot of fun trying to make weapons interesting and useful so there's no one clear winner: hammers stun more but don't hit as hard as axes, which in turn don't have the OCV bonus of a sword for the larger striking area and ease of use, and so on.  But since Hero has no official delineation between slashing, piercing, crushing, etc damage, its up to the GM to work out how that affects weapons and combat.  Arrowheads can be armor piercing?  Is a war pick penetrating?  etc.  I'm even working out some rules that make some weapons unable to carry out some kinds of maneuvers -- or give bonuses in others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

And its not just firearms; melee weapons can be given greater granularity as well: weapon size, mass, how big the striking head is, leverage, etc.  I actually have a lot of fun trying to make weapons interesting and useful so there's no one clear winner: hammers stun more but don't hit as hard as axes, which in turn don't have the OCV bonus of a sword for the larger striking area and ease of use, and so on

 

YouTuber Lindybeige proved that Spears were the easiest weapon to learn and become proficient at. Massed spearman are no joke. 

 

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

.  But since Hero has no official delineation between slashing, piercing, crushing, etc damage, its up to the GM to work out how that affects weapons and combat.  Arrowheads can be armor piercing?  Is a war pick penetrating?  etc.  I'm even working out some rules that make some weapons unable to carry out some kinds of maneuvers -- or give bonuses in others.

 

I am definitely picking up the Guide then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2019 at 6:23 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I still think the format should have always been "x Champions" but ICE was in charge when that naming format was established and now its part of the brand.

 

Ummm...no.

 

Back in the 2e days, we got Espionage and Justice Inc.  Then Hero decided to add a Fantasy game, with the working title Fantasy Hero.  Their newsletter of the day held a contest to name the game.  They did not get anything better than Fantasy Hero, so that is what the game was called.  That was the start of X Hero games, long before ICE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Simon locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...