zslane

It's original focus was dark, gritty vigilante action, like Batman or the Punisher. Over time it expanded to basically include all "modern day" non-superhero action, the RPG equivalent to the "action movie" genre. That's why I agree with Lucius that it should have been re-branded as Action Hero long ago.

Dude, we are of the same tribe, you and I. From my brain to your fingers, it seems.
 
However, I will say that superhero genre conventions do make their way into my playstyle in that they inform the nature of the problems that the heroes will face. They inform the way the heroes will be treated, by citizens and by villains. They inform the way I expect citizens and villains to be treated by the PCs. And so forth. Genre conventions should make the game feel like the source material, so that players could never mistake a superhero campaign with, say, a fantasy campaign.

I admit, I miss Mjolnir. Don't get me wrong, Stormbreaker is impressive, and the depiction of its forging was epic. But IMO Mjolnir is so much cooler. It's also iconic. Like Cap's shield, Green Lantern's ring, the Silver Surfer's board, or Wonder Woman's lasso, Thor and his hammer are a set, and have been for generations.

The rules portion of Fantasy Hero Complete and Champions Complete are essentially the same.  The document "Champions Complete Converting Characters" in the HERO System 6th Edition Documents downloads section gives a short rundown of the major changes.
 
https://www.herogames.com/files/file/153-champions-complete-converting-characters/
 

Dude, we are of the same tribe, you and I. From my brain to your fingers, it seems.
 
However, I will say that superhero genre conventions do make their way into my playstyle in that they inform the nature of the problems that the heroes will face. They inform the way the heroes will be treated, by citizens and by villains. They inform the way I expect citizens and villains to be treated by the PCs. And so forth. Genre conventions should make the game feel like the source material, so that players could never mistake a superhero campaign with, say, a fantasy campaign.

Wow,.....
 "Story Story Story.."

"Genre Genre Genre"

">...the hell?"

I think the whole reason for "Dark Champions"  became a thing was two fold: 1.) the base rules started as a Silver Age pastiche, but Comic books themselves transitioned into the dark and gritty phase after the Comics Code faded in concert with the fading of the news stand market, and the rise of the Direct Sales Market.  2.) People feeling that superhero Genre Conventions weren't all that realistic ("To hell with tights. I'm wearing Kevlar Torso armor, sap gloves, and a decent helmet), and perhaps the war game aspects of Hero, especially since it was at the time, debuted at a War Game Convention, the biggest on the West Coast at the time.

 As such, I am not here for the story. Story is what happens after you finish the game. what I am here for is the problem.  I have a tactical mind, and for me Each game presents for me a problem to solve, within the framework of the rules, with the resources we have been given.  As a GM that's how I plan.  I figure out what the opposition thinks of the Player characters, and what the relative strengths and weaknesses are between them, then figure out where, and when, and present that to the players , then i sit back and listen. Loads of fun. But this focus on genre conventions and story structure to me, is not fun. I love to roleplay, but I prefer that the characters have internally consistent reasons for them to behave the way they do, rather than external reasons focused on "collaborative storytelling".  Just give me dice, Miniatures and a mat. I will be quite happy to write something up.
 
[Game-ist- Simulationist]
 

These...exist?

Switching to Champions (from AD&D back in the day) was a no-brainer for me because of two major aspects of the Hero System that I was immediately drawn to:
 
1. The character building system was logical and extremely flexible. I am a "builder" by nature, and so this system not only made sense to me logically and mathematically, it appealed to the engineer/designer in me. The notion that everything could be expressed in terms of Character Points was a total game changer. A further consequence of the point-build system was that the simplistic and rigid "level" system of D&D was replaced with a more user-directed and granular character progression paradigm, which was a welcome change to me.
 
2. The combat system, along with the separation of BODY and STUN (and the use of END to power, well, powers) was so much more logical to me than THAC0, hit points, and saving throws. The awkward way that AD&D tried to incorporate the concept of knocking an opponent out (rather than killing them) never really worked right with the concept of hit points, and the BODY/STUN paradigm solved this problem elegantly.
 
Basically, anyone who has played D&D for a while and has become frustrated by its over-simplifications, awkward combat mechanics, and rigid leveling system could do a lot worse than to look at the Hero System as a remedy for all those woes.

Maybe "tropes" has become overused and doesn't really belong in this discussion. If so, then I'll gladly switch to the more traditional and acceptable term "genre conventions".

There was a time when the Champions rulebook wasn't a monstrous tome that sent new players screaming into the hills. Back in the 2nd ed. days, you could hand experienced RPGers the rulebook, let them create characters of their own (maybe with a little guidance), and run the intro scenario in the boxed set, followed by The Island of Dr. Destroyer without difficulty. Since that time, the Hero System has become a product written for veterans of the game, catering to their accumulated demands over the years, and presented in a way that is anything but inviting to a new player.
 
The Complete books are something of a return to simpler times, but the system does lack an officially published collection of "intro" scenarios intended to introduce the game to new players. Providing some wouldn't be borrowing from other games, per se, as much as it would be borrowing from the game's own (distant) past.
 
But along those lines, I would borrow the idea of the Plot Point Campaign (and setting) from Savage Worlds and turn it into a full product line.

Switching to Champions (from AD&D back in the day) was a no-brainer for me because of two major aspects of the Hero System that I was immediately drawn to:
 
1. The character building system was logical and extremely flexible. I am a "builder" by nature, and so this system not only made sense to me logically and mathematically, it appealed to the engineer/designer in me. The notion that everything could be expressed in terms of Character Points was a total game changer. A further consequence of the point-build system was that the simplistic and rigid "level" system of D&D was replaced with a more user-directed and granular character progression paradigm, which was a welcome change to me.
 
2. The combat system, along with the separation of BODY and STUN (and the use of END to power, well, powers) was so much more logical to me than THAC0, hit points, and saving throws. The awkward way that AD&D tried to incorporate the concept of knocking an opponent out (rather than killing them) never really worked right with the concept of hit points, and the BODY/STUN paradigm solved this problem elegantly.
 
Basically, anyone who has played D&D for a while and has become frustrated by its over-simplifications, awkward combat mechanics, and rigid leveling system could do a lot worse than to look at the Hero System as a remedy for all those woes.

Switching to Champions (from AD&D back in the day) was a no-brainer for me because of two major aspects of the Hero System that I was immediately drawn to:
 
1. The character building system was logical and extremely flexible. I am a "builder" by nature, and so this system not only made sense to me logically and mathematically, it appealed to the engineer/designer in me. The notion that everything could be expressed in terms of Character Points was a total game changer. A further consequence of the point-build system was that the simplistic and rigid "level" system of D&D was replaced with a more user-directed and granular character progression paradigm, which was a welcome change to me.
 
2. The combat system, along with the separation of BODY and STUN (and the use of END to power, well, powers) was so much more logical to me than THAC0, hit points, and saving throws. The awkward way that AD&D tried to incorporate the concept of knocking an opponent out (rather than killing them) never really worked right with the concept of hit points, and the BODY/STUN paradigm solved this problem elegantly.
 
Basically, anyone who has played D&D for a while and has become frustrated by its over-simplifications, awkward combat mechanics, and rigid leveling system could do a lot worse than to look at the Hero System as a remedy for all those woes.

I'm not gonna lie.
 
Logging into Atlas City, there were tears.

Demolition Man, methinks.

I think Affleck was a decent choice, and the fact that his version of the character didn't strike a deep chord with audiences isn't really his fault.
 
As for Keaton, well, I guess he was okay. I must be the only person who never thought he was all that great in the role. He made for a serviceable Bruce Wayne, but I don't feel he was a convincing Batman. The whole "put him in body armor with fake muscles" approach was started with Keaton because he didn't have the physique to be a superhero, and the precedent it set in Hollywood has been truly unfortunate, in my view.

Demolition Man, methinks.

Demolition Man, methinks.

The Salkinds pulled this stunt once before, with Richard Lester no less. They shot The Three Musketeers as a single film, paying the actors accordingly for the one film they were contracted for, and then split it up into two films, the reasoning being that the movie was too long and would likely fail at the box office at its full length. The furor over this resulted in the infamous "Salkind Clause" that has been in all SAG contracts since then, making it illegal to sign actors to a single film and then splitting up the footage and releasing more than one from it.

Favorite YouTube title of the day: BATWOMAN'S RUBY ROSE IS A TOXIC MAN!

The streaming landscape is so screwed up right now with everyone scrambling to play their part in the Great Splintering of the digital entertainment space. I'm just going to sit back and watch it all turn to ash, and then see which services are still standing after the Great Reckoning occurs.

The streaming landscape is so screwed up right now with everyone scrambling to play their part in the Great Splintering of the digital entertainment space. I'm just going to sit back and watch it all turn to ash, and then see which services are still standing after the Great Reckoning occurs.

The streaming landscape is so screwed up right now with everyone scrambling to play their part in the Great Splintering of the digital entertainment space. I'm just going to sit back and watch it all turn to ash, and then see which services are still standing after the Great Reckoning occurs.

This YouTube video neatly and humorously explains and describes exactly how I feel about movies that needlessly (and in some cases, ruinously) explore the "mysteries and depths" of characters we've come to love from earlier movies. Here's hoping Disney watches this (and pays heed) before having Young Thanos written too deeply into the fabric of the Eternals movie.
 
 

This gross mis-characterization of my point is beneath you, Hugh.

This gross mis-characterization of my point is beneath you, Hugh.