Christopher R Taylor

I don't mind a few daffy villains, because that's period but they shouldn't all be goofball. A mix, like Kingdom of Champions had would work well for me: some strange theme villains, some wartime based ones, and some just standard criminal types. Penny Dreadful is fine, but you gotta have Eisenkreutz and The Bowery Boys in there too.

To me the essence of a good Golden Age Champions game is twofold: 1) Make it as historically immersive and accurate as possible, because the time is so amazingly rich with historical events and personalities. Having your characters be congratulated by Major LaGuardia over defeating the super-powered version of Lucky Luciano is just fun. 2) Have your morality be absolutely black and white. None of this "its all a matter of perspective" gray areas crap but good guys are good, bad guys are bad. That doesn't mean they have to be stupid or simplistic, but everyone should have a clear idea where the lines are drawn. Timelines for that time period are easy to find, and I've had a load of fun with real-world events and how the PCs interact with them. Sometimes I've even messed with the chronology, so King Kong, the Hindenberg, and the War of the Worlds happen in 39-40 so far. As long as you're reasonably close to the time period, players will accept it. I've also found it useful to include a relative time period reminder, so players get a feel for when things took place. Such as how very recent WWI was, or when prohibition ended, etc. Saying it in terms such as "WWI ended 18 years ago, so for us that would be 1997" can really help bring this home.

Yeah I knew a new edition was coming out, and there's a ton of great background info available. Mostly what these supplements need are scenario ideas, adventures, and prepared storylines for GMs. I really liked the NPCs in the GAC book and its a terrific supplement, but the tone seemed too light hearted to me. I don't think the game needs to be grim and gritty with wolverine clones and all that early 90s crap but the comics at the time were not silly or goofy.

I've been running a Golden Age Champions campaign for about a year and a half now, and its been a lot of fun to slip in various historical events like the wreck of the Hindenburg and the evacuation from Dunkirk. But the source material for Golden Age stuff is usually really light hearted, even goofy and silly. Having read a lot of Golden Age comic books, they aren't silly so much as pulp-themed. Characters will even kill villains on occasion - not execute them, but if the bad guy happens to fall into the gears of a machine well, no more than he deserved. The really colorful silly stuff was late in the golden age and early silver, mostly silver age. That's fine but it doesn't really say GAC to me.

The spirit rules were a good raw idea, and its too bad they never got developed in later editions into a part of the game.

In any case, I think the cover works; its interesting to look at, gives a fantasy feel, has the requisite "strong woman" figure in it, and should be well received.

Sorry I wasn't more clear; I was referring to Jason's statement about stand alone rule books not selling well, which was about the 2-volume massive 6th edition rule set. That didn't sell well because in the heart of a recession, not many had a spare 100+ bucks to blow on a set of RPG rules. I'm not convinced the market changed so much as the spare change gamers had to invest in a new edition and the cost/size of that new edition went in opposite directions. Plus, looking over the store, it wasn't precisely clear what books were the main rules and to buy; they all looked the same and had pretty similar write ups. I write this not to bash anyone but out of frustration, because I think it hurt my favorite hobby and what I think is the finest game system and set of rules that has ever been created. The new direction Hero is going is selling well, which is good, and that is helping the Champions brand, which is also very good.

I think the rule book model can work but its got to be, you know, smaller and cheaper. If your rules cost as much as a college textbook and functions well as a chock to stop aircraft, yeah you're going to be challenged to sell the monster. But if you slim it down and make it cost a bit less, well that's going to be a bit more attractive to buyers, I'd think.

My only concerns are that the dwarf is clearly not ready for a fight wearing his pack like that, and that girl doesn't look remotely imposing, so the Dragon must just be a friend of theirs or a very silly creature.

I agree, the best way to learn the system is build characters. If you need ideas, just try to do some conversions of villains you like, such as Loki or Red Skull, Joker, General Zod, Venom, etc. Once you get comfortable building guys you will have a good grasp on the system as it works. There are tons of characters online you can find as well.

The system is moving away from the "all our books look the same" pattern and that should help, but it really is not very clear what is the rules and since each new book is printing the rules again, its even less clear for buyers, I fear.

This is one of my fears with the present situation Hero Games is in. From a Facebook post: Which book is right? What do you buy to play? Which are the rules? What does a shop order? We know, because we've been playing the game, but someone new trying it out?

That's why I put disads on magic items. Sure you got a potion of Healing, but it has Distinctive Looks: magical treasure. Like that Flaming Sword of Doom? Its hunted by the Knights who say Ni and has a psychological Complication: Hates priests. If you won't go along with the sword, it puts out its fire

I think an advantage that adds to minimum damage (but not max) would be useful for some rare effects. +1/4 for each die having +1 minimum damage (so the die is 2-6 instead of 1-6, all 1's being shifted to 2) seems a possible cost. This would greatly reduce the low end of volatility but not affect overall power. I've used it for some magical weapons in my fantasy loot book.

Its simple enough. Rejecting a rule or aspect of a game because people will argue over it is going to lead you to stopping play any games at all. Gamers debate rules, particularly on forums like this.

I still use average defense for AE attacks on characters. Its a little work to get figured out but its handy in heroic games.

From my study and information on trauma, weapon damage, and wounding, having attacks do significantly more stun than body is more realistic, as far as the game goes. Its extremely rare that someone just outright dies from a hit unless its incredibly catastrophic like falling out of orbit or being hit by a butane bomb. Usually people take a significant injury to an area, are knocked unconscious and die from blood loss or trauma over a period of time either short or long. However, in fantasy games people are so used to fiction and D&D where you hit creatures until they fall down dead, fighting to the last hit point, so the stun system in Hero confuses some, I think.

Some genres work best with hit locations and other optional rules. Others don't. Superhero games for instance are best without the bleeding and hit locations. A gritty game set in WWI would be wrong without them and impairing, etc. So whe people say "need" they mean "your genre won't be very well represented without them" rather than "you're compelled to use this by the might of Thor."

Its rare anyone dies before being knocked out in a heroic game. Especially with hit locations, as people note. Stun is cheaper to buy now, but its not that big a change.

I like that ruling, that works well.

hang a dummy over a grinding machine in the middle! Seriously, I've never played a set of RPG rules yet that simulated sports well, and I suspect one that can do that really easily and smoothly has the most ideal combat system.

I suppose you could do it that way, but I'm not sure why instead of an advantage. The distinction between adders and advantages is a bit unclear though, mostly its just a case of a fixed cost rather than based on the value of the power. For example, "position shift" could have been a 1/4 advantage. But that would have been pretty expensive on a high cost flight power. On the other hand, if all you want is position shift, its kind of expensive on that 1m teleport, relatively speaking.

I agree, I think the class specific books and all those extra rules have led some people to fixate on finding the perfect combination of rules and tricks using the books instead of playing the game. I think MMOGs have contributed to that too, with min maxing using spreadsheets and real time calculating programs to maximize DPS.

I've never had a character buy more than one or two specific weapon skill levels; I think you misunderstand what I mean by "each weapon they have a specific skill level with" it means skill levels specifically purchased for a specific weapon as in "+1 with longsword" not "+1 with swords" or "+1 with melee weapons." I don't know how many characters you have seen that do this, but weapons are fairly cheap in my game anyway. As for the riding, I've never know that to be restricted to a fighter-type PC, and while horses are VERY expensive, I'm willing to give the PCs the benefit of mobility since it has very little combat application. Warhorses are a different story.

Really that is mostly what it comes down to, a sense of perception. I mean the same guy who claims to "f'in love science" and can do trig whines that Hero has "too much math" in it. As I said, its the sense that things are more complex rather than the reality of it, but I believe the way to get past that is with the "x Complete" approach that shows the game stripped down and lean then the rules show how to answer specific questions and confusion that might come up, if need be.