Jump to content
Chris Goodwin

Early editions: House rules?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

 

To me the decreasing returns were what made the Disadvantages worthwhile.  You have a reason to not always hit the campaign maximum, and in fact the "maximum" in those days was usually a range.  

 

Without them, you're pretty much always guaranteed to hit your 50 points per category, 150 max points worth of Disads; every player character I've ever seen, always always always, without exception, under 4th through 6th editions always takes the maximum needed.  There's no reason not to, because you're leaving money on the table if you don't.  

When I first learned Champs in 4th I didn’t understand the Base + Disadvantages. I thought you HAD to take the Maximum. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

When I first learned Champs in 4th I didn’t understand the Base + Disadvantages. I thought you HAD to take the Maximum. ?

 

Well... I mean... why wouldn't you?  

 

In the 4th edition days, we had one guy come into the game with a Champions character sheet with "Standard Disadvantages" for 150 points.  On the one hand, no!  On the other hand... you can almost work them out on the fly.  Every character had three Psych Lims, two Hunteds, Secret (maybe Public) ID, a Reputation, and one to three between Susceptibility, Vulnerability, Berserk/Enraged, maybe Distinctive Features.  Every character came in at 250 points, no more, no less.  

 

We made him work them out, but we didn't let that stop him from playing, and it didn't delay the session, because we pretty much all knew what "Standard Disadvantages" meant.  

 

(Don't believe me that that was the "Standard Disadvantages" for a 4th edition Champions character?  I challenge you.  Grab a couple of character sheets, and break 'em down.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Without them, you're pretty much always guaranteed to hit your 50 points per category, 150 max points worth of Disads

 

And I got rid of the max per category, too.  If you can come up with a good reason and character story behind it I don't care if you are ALL Psych Lims

 

 

I got rid of the max per category myself.  However, I retained diminishing returns.  I found that some players would still take a seventh or eighth, just because it was "right" for their character.  I gave in: I gave them 1/8, which if I recall amounted to about a point each.  I just wanted to give them _something_ for going that deep into concept without regard for its "value."

 

Chris:

 

I think I found the diskette my house rules for Presence Attack were recorded on.  I've sent it to a friend who has the equipment to extract it and put it into something I can use in these highfalutin future times we find ourselves living in.  :lol:

 

 

Duke

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

I think I found the diskette my house rules for Presence Attack were recorded on.  I've sent it to a friend who has the equipment to extract it and put it into something I can use in these highfalutin future times we find ourselves living in.  :lol:

 

 

 

I haven't gotten a useable file back yet, but I did just get an e-mail from said friend.  Very short, and to the point:

 

"Oh MY GOD do I hate you."

 

(I can only assume the smilie fell out somewhere between his computer and mine)

 

 

Duke

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm not a huge fan of double-posts, but this really did seem like the more appropriate place to put this.  For those of you who aren't following the "Maxima and other Things" thread under Fantasy HERO, I've reposted this here.

 

(Honestly, Chris; this is why I'm not good at the House Rules thread.  I spread those things into a lot of different conversations. :lol:

 

 

At any rate, my House Rule for Life Support: Character Does Not Age:

 



Agreed whole-heartedly.  In all the years since I started Playing Champions / HERO, I have only had _one_ instance where it had a genuine "this is only possible because the character is immortal" payoff.

 

I had a player with a character who was immortal during a historically-set time period.  The only pay-off was that I let that same player run the same character in a modern campaign back in the late 90s, and a couple of years later, he used that same character (after some mandatory experience point shaving) in an occult western we were doing.

 

So the only payoff he ever got for Life Support: does not age was two campaigns of not having to make a new character.  Fun and all that, but worth it?  Well, only the player can be the judge of that, honestly.

 

It did inspire me, though.  I know handle "immortal" or "Methuselesque" (thank you, DCF, of my old Daredevils-to-Champions-engine conversion campaign for one of the coolest power names _ever_! :rockon: ) differently.  It costs a bit more, but I now build it as a small skill pool large enough to build any two (simultaneously, I mean; it's not like you're stuck with 2 forever) 8-Knowledge skills, so long as they relate to outdated skills or historical events, people, and places.  I allow Area knowledges as well, but they are also limited to 8-, since "things have changed a lot since the last time I was here."

 

 

Crap.

 

I guess I should have put that in the House Rules section, hunh?

 

Helllooooooo, Double-post! :D 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not aging is not worth many points but then neither is poison or disease resistance in most games.  If you never really run into disease as a power or threat in your Champions game, that's 5 points blown on nonsense.  Cheaper than previous editions but still even in a fantasy game where they're much more likely to show up its a pretty heavy investment for not a common return.  

 

As for other house rules, I would strongly, very strongly suggest if you're going to play early edition Champions that you seriously consider some of the later ideas like how life support and martial arts were structured rather than the damage multipliers in 3rd or earlier editions.  And using things like stages of +10 rather than multiples of a stat for things like presence attacks and mental powers.  Even ideas such as Barrier or the way area effect is set up in 6th edition are far superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay; I'm awake!  :lol:

 

 

Yeah, sounds strange, but let me explain:

 

I was four days (Sunday and three work days) laid out with the flu.  Should have laid out one more, but I was going stir crazy.  Went back to work knowing better, but I wanted to get out, and of course, there's that whole "work or go hungry" thing working against laying out in the first place.   My typical workday is thirteen hours; sometimes it's a bit short, sometimes it's a bit long.  Yesterday's was, mercifully, a couple of _hours_ short, allowing me a few minutes to catch my breath.    I checked in here, but I had to get ready for the youth group game: an extended session (that turned into a nearly all-nighter) that saw the exciting climax and conclusion of their campaign.  It was a huge success, and there was celebration afterward (pre-ordered of course; this town is too small for an all-night anything except Sprawl-Mart).

 

So I got precious little rest, and needed even more than usual.  Tried to post this last night, when I got in, but I got sidetracked on the board and ended up I dont' even know where and woke up in  in this chair, computer glowing, sun coming up....    decided I should take a little nap......

 

Okay; I'm awake!  :lol:

 

 

As promised, there was a bit of house rule I was going to post here, in spite of posting it elsewhere already.  Still:

 

PRE Attacks are defended against by EGO.  It makes more sense to me.  Presence is your force of personality.  As long as I'm discussing what makes sense to me, the fact that the rules interpret this as always being a fear-based reaction baffles me.  "Strength of Personality" does not automatically imply "scary."  It just doesn't.  I would like to cite Terry Hogan as a great example, but all my evidence is anecdotal.  The gist, however, is that everyone who knew the guy, even in high school, comment on being bowled over or plowed under by his personality, but he wasn't aggressive, threatening, or anything else.  He was, evidently, extremely outgoing  and very likable.  He wasn't known to dislike anyone.  He was a bit of a boor, apparently, since it seems that the thing he liked to talk about most was Terry Hogan.  (I believe he's still famous for that, actually).

 

But still: a big, strong personality that is decidedly not fear-based.

 

Look at Sam Elliott--

 

actually, no; don't.  I don't want to drag this out.   I need to make my points and move on, because I have been spending entirely too much time here, and it's not like I've got the time to actually do what I've been doing more and more and more of, and that's hanging out here.  It's cutting too much into my sleep, and my health and faculties are starting to suffer for it.  So just pretend I mentioned something about Sam Elliott having a powerful commanding presence in spite of not actually being able to back it up (which, even this far after his prime, Terry Hogan could probably still do) with a butt whuppin'.

 

This judgement has allowed my players a good bit of freedom, as the don't feel they have to play one of the various denizens of Gotham or a hulking animalistic brick to justify a high PRE score: it's not a measure of scariness; it's a measure of, as the rules state, "force of personality."

 

But the idea that your force of personality was the defense against some else's force of personality never sat any better with me than did "your scariness is your defense against someone else's scariness."  So what is it?  I did some thinking and some light research-- then some accidental research that really drove it home for me.  

 

oh yes: the accidental research:

 

Way back in the mid-eighties, there were a number of things going--  Sorry.  Short version.  Donny T was missing a beat down.  I had found it for him, and had been wanting to deliver it for some time.  One summer night, coming home from a date that ended up with my girlfriend and I mad at each other, I passed Donny T's truck broken down under the light at the SUNOCO station, and lo-and-behold guess who's legs were sticking out from under it?  I fishtailed the bike around, bolted it over the curb, dropped the stand, and started yelling and cussing before I had managed to get my helmet off.  The feet stirred and a hand came out from under the truck and I grabbed Donny T by the ankles and _snatched_ him the rest of the way out from under that truck and it       wasn't Donny T at all.  Not even a little bit.

 

Turns out Donny had sold that truck to another guy, and that guy was not even a little bit, either.  He started screaming and hollering, and at that point I had two options: backpedal and try to explain the situation or bulldog on through and hope he flinched.  Given that he had _at least_ five inches and eighty pounds on me, I didn't figure he was going to flinch, and I wasn't smart enough to try the other option.  So I did the dumbest, most typical thing a young, healthy man with a score to settle could do: I kept being threatening.  We escalated things between us for at least a minute or two.  But that's getting too long, too.

 

So while I was getting my ass kicked (thoroughly, I might add), I had an epiphany.  I realized that I had known from the moment I dragged this complete (and very large) stranger out from under "his" truck and got a solid look at him pretty much how this would up, should we come to blows.  I was no small fella, and (from this point in my life, I am not terribly proud to say) no stranger to a fight.  But this guy outclassed me physically, and I had no idea of his skill.  His looks told me immediately that we lived a similar lifestyle, and that he, too, had likely had some practice dusting his knuckles.  He was a couple of years older than me: not enough to slow him down at all, but enough to give him more opportunity to have fought and learned from it.  He also had a focused look and manner about him (which could have been a simple response to my own posturing) that suggested he was more likely to resort to violence anyway, which led me to make the decision to not back down in the first place).  But the entire time-- from that instant I realized I had little hope of winning this fight to the moment I had this epiphany, I had absolutely not been afraid of him.  Knowing that I was likely going get a solid ass-kicking (and I did, and it was very solid) had not deterred or even concerned me.  I could still very cleanly see what he was doing and try to move or retaliate.  My head was clear.  I was able to quite completely notice that he was both faster than me and more physically powerful than me.  I could understand mid-fight-- not replaying it later, but as it was happening-- that he had already learned every left was a feint and he was comfortable stepping in to them to get around the right that he knew was coming even before I could make myself not throw it.

 

Now that's not to say I didn't touch him.  I bopped him here and there, and his middle was softer than mine.  His gourd, however, was was more extreme to my range than mine was to his.  And of course, I already mentioned he was faster.....

 

So two minutes later, it's all over.   He's standing by the truck, moving a bit, getting warmer and looser, and I'm getting up off the ground.  "We gonna do this again?" he bellows in that gigantic taunt with which we are all so familiar.  "If we have to." I posture back at.  Much flatter than his.  I am trying to convey that I'm not interested in it, but I'm perfectly willing.

 

He postures another minute or so, I drop my defensive stance and posture back, and ask "Well?  You gonna dance alone all night?"

 

The he just laughs, we look at each other, laugh some more, and talk a few minutes.  He makes fixing his truck noises; I make getting home noises.  I started back to the bike and he yelled "you gonna try that crap again?"

 

I looked back at him.  "You let those fists get out of line again, and I'll do my best to beat them till they bruise."  He's got a bloody nostril and a black eye.  I've got two of each.  And a cut lip.  He was standing when I fell for a feint and took a straight-out sucker punch that turned me enough to trip over my own feet.  He wins.  I get on the bike and go home, he crawls back under the truck.

 

 

It was about two months later when I realized what I had learned. 1) Presence isn't about looking scary.  I was big and ugly; he was bigger-- much bigger-- and while not ugly, definitely harder-looking.  Everything in me told me I _should_ be scared of this guy, but something kept me from doing it.  Neither of us would qualify as being especially scary-looking, but he admitted to-- well I won't quote it, but being extremely scared when a guy rolled up, squealed to a stop, leapt off the bike screaming bloody murder, and was doubly-so when I grabbed him and dragged him out of the truck.  I admitted that I had a hard re-think when he just wouldn't stop standing up.  I even told him that I knew I was going to get beaten pretty badly, but for whatever reason, I hadn't been scared.  He told me that once the fight started, he wasn't scared, either: he just fell into habit.  Turns out he was a solider from the local base, so yeah-- _way_ better training that I had _ever_ had, which was none at all.  All my "practice" came from actual fights. Learning-on-the-fly, as it were, isn't nearly as efficient as a good instructor, and the military specializes in that sort of thing, from the physical to the mental.  Just like he said: once he had analyzed the situation, he just fell into habit.  I had known I was out-classed, but hadn't really appreciated just how much until we talked those few minutes.

 

I was setting up a new campaign, preparing for the end of the current one, when I made this connection.  PRE vs PRE wasn't what kept me from being scared.  It wasn't what caused my opponent (whose name I never asked.  It didn't seem appropriate)  to stop being scared when the fists started flying.  I mean, it was sort of "presence," but it was "presence of mind" more than it was force of personality.  Force of personality-- that's the zeal with which you act, the confidence and certainly that you project, even the efforts you make to sell that image of yourself.  But when someone does it to you, it's not a skill-versus-skill sort of thing: you can't "unposture" your opponent.  It is your determination to stand your ground, your willpower that forces you to ignore all the flash and gumption rolling at you, and see this thing through to the end, regardless of the outcome.

 

And that campaign was the beginning of the House Rule that PRE Attacks are defended against by EGO.  Now we _do_ have "Presence Defense (FD)" as a Characteristic, and it is modeled price-wise on PRE: only for defending against PRE Attacks, but that's because we already had that in play.  We have never interpreted it as "PRE: only for defending against PRE Attacks;" we only priced it by that model.  We have always interpreted it as the ability to see posturing for what it is; the ability to see how much of the bravado is genuine, and how much is for show-- the ability to see that maybe, just maybe, he's not as confident as he'd like you to think. 

 

Now to be fair, from the point of that entire realization, I had always meant to go back and remodel the cost as EGO: yadda yadda, but I never did.  Partly because we already had an EGO-Defense (MD) characteristic modeled that very same way, partly because no one ever really bought a whole lot of FD (remember that our older editions used Characteristic X "so much" as opposed to Characteristics + "so much," meaning that a little went a long way, and partly because moving from PRE vs PRE to PRE vs EGO was just enough of a difficult sell to the players that I didn't want to rattle things up any further.

 

 

So, if you're young and full of vinegar, and are looking for just the right experience to get your creative juices flowing, I highly recommend not getting yourself beat up because your temper is short and your mouth is quick.  There are better ways.  Perhaps none that stick with you as well, but still: there are better ways.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 9:00 PM, Lord Liaden said:

This is a useful rule to explain how trained martial artists can break boards, concrete blocks etc. without breaking their hands, feet etc.

 

Firstly, I like the rule and this is largely tongue-in-cheek.  I am myself a black belt and have broken many boards and concrete blocks over the years and even a brick once.

 

Secondly, martial artists do these things using the following skills (in order of importance)

1-  Deception:  Most of the things they are breaking are either very breakable (pine vs. oak) or arranged in a way to maximize breakability (concrete slabs with spacers on the outer edges).

2-  Fitness:  A huge part of being a functional martial artist is being stronger and faster than your untrained counter-parts.  Lose the fitness and your many skills mean almost nothing at all.

3-  Conditioning:  By slamming your fists, shins and knuckles into hard objects on a repeat basis you eventually increase bone density and this helps a lot when it comes to not breaking your bones on the aforementioned objects.

 

Still, replace a stack of lame pine boards (I've broken 2 at once holding them by my finger tips while hitting with my free hand) with a single 1" thick piece of Oak and you'd see nothing but broken hands.

 

It's cheap stage magic folks and I say that as a former member of the cheap stage magicians guild.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

Firstly, I like the rule and this is largely tongue-in-cheek.  I am myself a black belt and have broken many boards and concrete blocks over the years and even a brick once.

 

Secondly, martial artists do these things using the following skills (in order of importance)

1-  Deception:  Most of the things they are breaking are either very breakable (pine vs. oak) or arranged in a way to maximize breakability (concrete slabs with spacers on the outer edges).

2-  Fitness:  A huge part of being a functional martial artist is being stronger and faster than your untrained counter-parts.  Lose the fitness and your many skills mean almost nothing at all.

3-  Conditioning:  By slamming your fists, shins and knuckles into hard objects on a repeat basis you eventually increase bone density and this helps a lot when it comes to not breaking your bones on the aforementioned objects.

 

Still, replace a stack of lame pine boards (I've broken 2 at once holding them by my finger tips while hitting with my free hand) with a single 1" thick piece of Oak and you'd see nothing but broken hands.

 

It's cheap stage magic folks and I say that as a former member of the cheap stage magicians guild.  ;)

 

I crumbled a cinder block with my bare hands one time. The effect was very cool both to watch and to do.

 

The secret was that the cinder block had previously been heated until it was weak and brittle but not heated in such a way that the cinder block was charred in any way.

 

It looked and felt like a normal cinder block until you tried to apply a moderate amount of pressure upon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

Firstly, I like the rule and this is largely tongue-in-cheek.  I am myself a black belt and have broken many boards and concrete blocks over the years and even a brick once.

 

Secondly, martial artists do these things using the following skills (in order of importance)

1-  Deception:  Most of the things they are breaking are either very breakable (pine vs. oak) or arranged in a way to maximize breakability (concrete slabs with spacers on the outer edges).

2-  Fitness:  A huge part of being a functional martial artist is being stronger and faster than your untrained counter-parts.  Lose the fitness and your many skills mean almost nothing at all.

3-  Conditioning:  By slamming your fists, shins and knuckles into hard objects on a repeat basis you eventually increase bone density and this helps a lot when it comes to not breaking your bones on the aforementioned objects.

 

Still, replace a stack of lame pine boards (I've broken 2 at once holding them by my finger tips while hitting with my free hand) with a single 1" thick piece of Oak and you'd see nothing but broken hands.

 

It's cheap stage magic folks and I say that as a former member of the cheap stage magicians guild.  ;)

No it’s not stage magic. Black belt here too. I’ve seen Pine that won’t break and guess what happens when you that happens? If you have good form, it hurts but not too much problem. Bad form? Broken hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was remembering the other day about how in a game I ran back in the 80's, where I pregenned the powers, I gave one character a weird Life Support: limbs can survive independently of the character.  I also gave him Regeneration... 3 or 4 BODY, I can't remember.  Part of the point to that was to let him reattach his limbs, which 3rd edition Champions didn't have a way to do.  Admittedly, it left the matter of losing a limb up to the GM.  

 

So now I'm writing up some Life Support equivalents to 5th/6th's limb recovery and resurrection adders for Healing/Regeneration, with a note that you have to buy them Usable On Others if you want to apply them like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 10:23 AM, Chris Goodwin said:

I was remembering the other day about how in a game I ran back in the 80's, where I pregenned the powers, I gave one character a weird Life Support: limbs can survive independently of the character.  I also gave him Regeneration... 3 or 4 BODY, I can't remember.  Part of the point to that was to let him reattach his limbs, which 3rd edition Champions didn't have a way to do.  Admittedly, it left the matter of losing a limb up to the GM.  

 

So now I'm writing up some Life Support equivalents to 5th/6th's limb recovery and resurrection adders for Healing/Regeneration, with a note that you have to buy them Usable On Others if you want to apply them like that. 

 

I knew a guy who did something similar for his agent zombies.  Upon taking body and losing a limb, the zombie would instantly summon the separated body part (like an animated arm or leg) which would continue to attack.  If the zombie and limb survived the attack, they would reattach defined as healing limbs and summons going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I spent all my free time this evening (not a lot of it today) hunting this thread clarify the vehicles house rules we use just a bit (another thread prodded the memory that I was going to do that some time back), but now that I'm here, I'm out of time.

 

So I'll leave you with something that isn't really a house rule, but was part of a campaign rule that sort of happened by accident:  Roofing contractors in Phoenix, Arizona are all dead.  All of them.  Zombies, if you must, but they aren't zombies: they are well-aware of their suffering.  In the campaign this came from, those who received Salvation prior to death went to Heaven.  Those who did not spent eternity as roofers in Phoenix.

 

 

Gotta run.  

 

Enjoy.

 

Duke

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished a very short scenario with the family (you gotta marry right, then raise the kids right, see ;)....)

 

I realized there was something I've been doing so long I had forgotten it was a house rule:

 

You don't get a Post-12 recovery if you're using END greater than 1/2 your REC score.  

 

Originally it was "you don't get a Post-12 if you're using END, but that was modified quickly-- second session we tried it in-- when it was pointed out that 1) not using END was pretty much taking a recovery, since you had to stop doing anything else.

 

2) it's possible to rest while still exerting yourself by reducing the amount of your exertion.   Honestly, I should have seen that myself!  All those decades ago, my spine was still good and I hadn't been shot in the knee yet, and I used to run.  As weird as this sounds, I did it for _fun_.  Not for exercise (though I fully understand that it _is_ exercise.  I ain't _completely_ shot out in the head!   :lol:  ).  No shorts or sweats; I'd just decide I wanted to run for a little bit-- in a field, down a dirt road, on a hunting trail-- wherever.  And when I started to get tired, I'd run a bit slower for a couple of minutes.  Still running, just not flat-out.  Kind of "sprint-jog-sprint-jog-sprint-jog---   that kind of rhythm.  

 

Anyway, it's been a house rule since...  Oh, maybe '83?  '84?  I don't even remember anymore.

 

Enjoy your bump!  I start my new part-time job tomorrow; turning n.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I _was_ going to go to bed, but the humidity has shifted and now I can't lie down comfortably  (never crush your spine; there's just no good side to that).

 

So I thought I'd spend a couple of minutes working on my adaptation of Judge's Guild's only superhero "adventure" ever published (it was a simple scenario, it was crap, and I'm killing myself trying to keep it that way  :lol:  I'm also....  losing.....)

 

Anyway, the conversion rules I was using (Perrin, MacDonald, and Perrin) are clearly skewed to produce superhuman results, and the original adventure was ...  so _badly written_ that there isn't even enough Statistics given for any one background character to actually do anything with them except apply Mook Rules......

 

So I opted to just do a quick-and-dirty write-up on the Security guards (which lead to another thing, then another....).  Anyway; seriously:  quick and dirty; no points values or cost balancing; just "this are the Characteristics; these are rudimentary appropriate Skills, this is likely equipment, period" kind of things.

 

As I was working up his Figureds, I realized I was doing something that was in fact a house rule I've been using for some time-- since the Days of Davien (my nemesis), actually.

 

A lot of discussion and publication has gone into avoiding the abuse of the rounding rules to gain free points.  Until Davien, I never really had anyone push that envelope the way it seems most of the membership here just _expects_ you to do every time you build a character-- like Goodman's School of Cost Effectiveness had "MANDATORY!" stamped across it or something.....

 

I didn't really ever do anything to "stop" it, but I did do something to minimize it, and I didn't think about posting it until I was -- well, I just told you that. 

 

in the Glory Days of Yore (by cracky!), Recovery was figured (STR/5) + (CON/5).  And it was (apparently) normal to pick STR and CON that ended in 3 or 8 to get both an extra PD and ED and two extra REC.  I was never bothered by the defenses because _everyone_ raised them anyway; what was one freebie?  That, and it didn't happen too often (until Davien).  So I altered that formula slightly.  I use REC= (STR+CON)/5.  Yeah, it only drops off _one_ "Free" point of Recovery, but again-- everyone buys it up a bit anyway, and REC was two points: not too terribly annoyed by one or two extra points of DEF, but four points of REC bugged the crap out of me.  Now it doesn't happen.

 

Did the same thing with STUN.  S= (BODY) + (STR+CON)/2.  Again, it only drops a single "freebie," but you'd be surprised how little discouragement it takes to get the majority of people to stop gaming the system.  And it was a _HELL_ of a lot easier than writing ten new rules books.    :lol:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No; I didn't forget.  New "Rule;" new post.  :D

 

 

This one isn't really a "rule," though, so much as something I've done since I learned to GM-- I actually learned it from my first Champions GM:  unique bystanders.

 

Let's say you've got a bunch of police or security guards or whatever involved in a scene, and for whatever reason you don't want them all to be identical (in spite of the fact that I don't think I have _ever_ had a player notice), but you don't want to build fifteen characters from scratch, either.

 

Take the one write up-- or even  blank sheet!-- and roll two differently-colored D6.  One is positive adjustments; one is negative adjustments.  No; you're not adjusting the character building points or the experience points-- you _didn't_ want to go through and do all that math and such, remember?

 

Adjust "X" points directly at the Characteristic value.  Say you roll a positive 4 and a negative 3.  You can add two points to STR and two points to COM, making them both 12 (starting values of 10; add 2, you get 12.  Simple).  You can add one to four characteristics; you can add three to one and one to another-- doesn't matter.  Do the same with your negative modifiers (just remember that he has to be able to qualify for the job he is actually in).

 

Almost instant individual background character.  I've gone so far as to have four guys on one sheet-- just write in the "other guys' " values across those little dotted lines in neat columns.

 

Want to go further?  If you have a "standard agent equipment chart," you can roll a die-- he has that many pieces from the list.  You can do the same with Skills (burn a second pick to increase the skill after you pick it).

 

 

Again-- it's not something I do often, because it really works best for those guys you don't have to balance or do full write-ups on, but there have been a few times where it's paid off-- one of those back-in-'83 randomly modified patrol officers is the current Campaign City police chief.    :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had to write-up a flashlight, which of course meant I had to use a House Rule:  I needed Change Environment--- STOP!  STOP right there! 

 

This is _not_ an invitation to re-open that discussion.  At all.  Period.  Comma, for you folks that use your punctuation weird.  "Full Stop," however you key it.

 

Here's the thing:  I run a mostly 2e game.  I say "mostly" because there's some stuff I pull back from later editions that meets two conditions:  I have at least semi-regular need for it, and I like that newer rule better than our current work around (honestly, I said "I have semi-regular need for it."  It's not like that didn't start until the day there was a rule just for it. ;)  ).

I also tend to re-write it to be more in line with 2e methodology or, baring a methodology, mechanics that are already in place.  And barring _that_, I go forward far enough to find a mechanic, and pull anything newer than that back to _that_ mechanic-- it sounds more complicated than it really is; I promise.

 

Anyway, Change Environment didn't exist as a Champions rule until 4e.  I'd been using a variant off of the Fantasy HERO rule that Change Environment was pulled from, but that's irrelevant and I'm tired.   :lol:   . Change Environment listed "make light" as an option, so that's what I use to make light. Prior to that, I'd been using Darkness recast as "Brightness."  _However_, I found part of the Change Environment mechanic redundant, as even 1e had a means of making something affect a whole area.

 

So the House Rule for Change Environment:  5 points per 1" of Change Environment.  This is merely the "range" of the Change Environment; to determine the Area, the character should buy an appropriate Area of Effect and apply that, using his pts /5 as the "base inches" of this power.

 

 

Then, to make flashlights I had to borrow from 3e:  Area of Effect: Cone.

 

 

Okay, here's the thing: there has been debate for a long time about wether or not Champions III was a 2e publication or a 3e publication.  Considering 1) that it is formatted identically to the 3e book and 2) there are things in Champs III that are _not_ in Champions 3e, I am inclined to view it as a 3e publication, even though it was published a few months before Champions 3e was.  My personal theory (which I have no means of and not a lot of interest in proving or disproving) is that 3e had been drafted, and a lot of stuff was culled-- edited out.  Possibly for costs?  Possibly to reduce the size of the book?  Who knows.  Upon realizing that this material would also work with the existing versions of the rules, I suspect it was published as a "guaranteed seller" to raise capital for the publishing of the new, much larger rules set _and_ to have that culled information in circulation, ready to use by anyone who opted to go for 3e.  Just a theory, again, but at least this one is rational.    :rofl:

 

 

So to make a Flashlight, "2e style," you buy a few inches of Change Environment (only to create light (-3/4)), apply AoE: Cone, possibly Explosion (to simulate the loss of effectiveness at the periphery of the light field), and call it a day.  Not cheap, but hey-- that's how you do it 2e style  (or buy "Brightness;) either is good. :D

 

For what it's worth, I altered Darkness a bit as well:  You buy your "length in inches" for 5 points per inch, then apply an Area of Effect.  It was actually doing that very thing that led me to think "hey!  What about Brightness?  I mean, _my_ TV has _both_ of those knobs....

 

 

So there you go:  House Rule for an early edition.  Oh-- the whole reason I don't use "brightness" anymore is because for the exact same cost, you can buy CE, which allows for a tightly-knit "range" of Environments.  Limiting that to "only for Light" should be _cheaper_ than something with more utility, I think.

 

No; I do _not_ charge points for anything but the most ludicrous of super-sci-fi flashlights.  However, I still need to know how they _work_ on the map. ;)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Okay, here's the thing: there has been debate for a long time about wether or not Champions III was a 2e publication or a 3e publication.  Considering 1) that it is formatted identically to the 3e book and 2) there are things in Champs III that are _not_ in Champions 3e, I am inclined to view it as a 3e publication, even though it was published a few months before Champions 3e was.

 

Indulging my casual interest in game history minutiae, my belief is that Champions III is a 2e book for two reasons: 1) in the Character Generator, both Growth and Shrinking are presented using 2e rules and not the revised 3e versions; 2) in the text for the new Teleportation Against Others advantage, it mentions that "Teleportation, like all movement powers, uses 1 END for every 5" the character moves. Moving extra characters, multiples of distance, or using Teleport against others does not cost extra END", which puts it clearly on the 2e side of the divide; under 3e Teleport is stated to cost "1 END for every 5 Power Points in Teleport (unlike other movement powers)."

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled house rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, and as I said-- there's debate both ways.  Everything presented in Champs II made it into 3e Champions.  There are things in Champs III that did not make it into 3e. Even the phrasing of your example: 2e never made the (rather obvious) distinction between "kinds" of powers, such as "movement powers."  3e did.   It makes no chronological sense, as  a lot things from C3 that _weren't_ in 3e _did_ make it into 4e (plus a whole lot more, to be sure).   The only verifiable fact is that we'll never really know for certain. ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Everything presented in Champs II made it into 3e Champions.

 

Caveat: I'm not trying to "win" any debates or "prove" myself right or anyone else wrong.  I'm genuinely curious, in case I've forgotten or just plain overlooked something.

 

My recollection is that essentially nothing in Champs II was incorporated into 3rd edition.  Is my memory that bad? :blink::)  3rd did incorporate a couple clarifications first presented in Champs III, but otherwise largely ignored the material in that book too.

 

My own take on 3rd (and I'm quite happy to agree that other views may be equally valid) is that it was an opportunity to a) make the core game look better - in line with the steady evolution in graphic design and layout demonstrated with each new release from at least Justice Inc. up to that point - b) make the core rules more "user-friendly" (as Aaron Allston described it in an issue of Adventurers Club), and c) polish some rough edges off the core rules, as opposed to a major reworking a la what happened with 4th edition.  I don't believe it was ever intended to substantially incorporate any of the "optional" material presented in Champs II or III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rravenwood said:

My recollection is that essentially nothing in Champs II was incorporated into 3rd edition.  Is my memory that bad? :blink::)  3rd did incorporate a couple clarifications first presented in Champs III, but otherwise largely ignored the material in that book too.

 

I'll have to double-check, but I don't think vehicles as presented made it into 3e.

 

Being completely up-front with you:  Chris Goodwin is better at this sort of thing that I am in an off-the-top-of-the-head kind of way; I have to look up everything every damned time-- unless it's in the 2e rules book proper, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...