C.R.Ryan

You did a great job. Thanks for looking into that.

That is a totally sweet look, and to be honest, I hand in plain documents with a few notes on my thinking of layout. I'm not sure if it is done as an export, but I can ask and see how it was done. Glad you liked the book, it was a lot of fun researching and writing. I will get back to you.

Got it, it's great. Any chance that there's an export template in the style of those character sheets in the back?
 
Edit: I use the publishable .RTF export template but I edit out a lot of the superfluous info like costs and adders. Those sheets are clean, I like them a lot.

https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/469869/victorian-hero-heroic-roleplaying-in-the-victorian-era

Is there an export format for Roll20 available. I just purchased the Champions bundle on Roll20 and I'm just curious.

@GM Joe I don't really track what skills have been used in the past. We are an old group, I've been playing for 35 years and two of the members have been with me for 30 of those years. A lot of trust. Which of course means I can under design a bit and me and the players can work things out in game. Would definitely need a bit more tooling to realize to people outside my group.
 
I think I drew more inspiration from the old Skills in Shadowrun where you might buy Firearms, and then specialize in rifles or something. I think it hues close to 5e backgrounds though. I hadn't really thought of that, some design space to think about. Thanks.

There is something to be said for granularity in certain campaigns. The ability to have skills granularity on a slider is I think more useful then a whole sale change. I do think in general though I do tend toward the broader skill motif. Navigation just lets you navigate, Survival lets you survive unless your are WAY afield of your home terrain. Unless it's baked into the game that various characters all have different science background the SCIENCE!!! PC get SCIENCE!!!
 
This is why I think in spite of our current RAW feeling more restrictive to some people, I'm happy with it, cause I like most of what Steve has done and if I don't like something, f*#& it, I'll do it myself. 

When I really think about it, broad skills like that seem like they would work great for my past supers campaigns and, frankly, many (most?) of my heroic campaigns as well. It'd even work when characters share archetypes, thanks to the option to specialize in a slice of the broad skill.
 
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I'm gonna lean that way with my Fantasy Hero campaign, expect to see something along those lines for Fantasy Hero.
 
The exception being Herbalism (very powerful potential) and stuff like Professional Skill because that's a pretty specific thing.

There is something to be said for granularity in certain campaigns. The ability to have skills granularity on a slider is I think more useful then a whole sale change. I do think in general though I do tend toward the broader skill motif. Navigation just lets you navigate, Survival lets you survive unless your are WAY afield of your home terrain. Unless it's baked into the game that various characters all have different science background the SCIENCE!!! PC get SCIENCE!!!
 
This is why I think in spite of our current RAW feeling more restrictive to some people, I'm happy with it, cause I like most of what Steve has done and if I don't like something, f*#& it, I'll do it myself. 

As much as I can enjoy a 5e D&D game, I do begin chaffing against the system eventually. Then someone busts out Gestalt or some other variant, and I am willing cause it's their game, but let's just play something else that does what we want out of the box.
 
As much as I like a steal mechanics from Narrative games I usually find the games as a whole less satisfying than a more robust rules environment. At least in Hero, I know what I'm ignoring.
 
 

Exactly! Something more proportional than skill enhancers may be more appropriate for some campaigns.
 
 
 
When I really think about it, broad skills like that seem like they would work great for my past supers campaigns and, frankly, many (most?) of my heroic campaigns as well. It'd even work when characters share archetypes, thanks to the option to specialize in a slice of the broad skill.
 
 
 
Seems like maybe we're approaching consensus on broad skills.
 
 
 
Have you felt a need to keep a record of such decisions for later reference?
 
 
That's a neat idea. It sounds like you've put a HERO spin on how some modern (and OSR) games use a character's backstory to determine some capabilities on the fly during play.
 
Have you tried giving folks a pool of "background skills points" that can only be spent when situations arise in  play that their character's background indicates they should have a related skill? Seems like it would take the onus of new players particularly, but even old hands may appreciate not having the pressure to predict every background-related skill that will be worth buying for the campaign.
 
But, there I go again, trying to apply a fix to the current system when it seems obvious that broader skills would solve the same problem more elegantly. 🙄
 
 

I don't know. Sometimes I deal with it by simply having broader skills. I'm not the biggest fan of Science Skills, when every other profession just has KS and PS. In pulpy or superhero games I often just give the scientist "PS: and KS: SCIENCE!!!", or "SS: SCIENCE!!!" I only concern myself with more granular Sciences if multiple characters are scientists and need their own expertise. 
 
I literally uses skill enhancers too.
 
In an earlier post I described the "Skill Sets" (Spacer, Smuggler, Doctor, Bounty Hunter, Jedi, ect) I use in Star Wars, 10, 15, 20 point professions that give a PC access to a broad scope of skills based on the situation they're in. Any time during the game when they think their PC should have a skill under a Set they have they can ask to use that skill and I decide if it's appropriate and at what level (8-, 11-, full skill).
 
They can also specialize in skills that are clearly in the skill set (Spacer: Combat Piloting) by paying 2 (+1). In that case they actually write the skill down (full skill roll+1) and we never need to have the dramatic justification of them using the skill.
 
Also for years I've been giving characters like 10pts in background skills for free (not including their native language). In a lot of games this gives a PC a profession, and a little bit of Knowledge to fill out their back story with out costing the a skill level or cooler skill (I like that Shadowing is separate from Stealth now they can have both for example). 
 
So I think if someone of someone has an EC idea for Skills then probably I'm into it. 
 
I like hero as a gaming code, that we can create systems and interfaces over. The game is running underneath giving any of these these systems a bit of sense and consistency.
 
Sorry if I'm beginning to repeat myself. I love talking through this stuff. It reenforces my understanding of the game and the way I build. This really is my favorite system.
 
 

I hesitate to say it, but would something like an EC for skills fix a lot of the cost issue?

I have played in a 5e campaign a few years back. We had a blast. Most games can be great if you like the players around the table with you. 

were I on my computer, I could move that to where I wanted to group it, but... 
 
Anyway, there are some interesting thoughts coming up from folks that shows a bit of concensus here for this idea. 
 
 
 
 
You and me both.  Though for what it's worth, it is easy enough to add back in.  Yes; I know that you know that, and that your complaint refers more to it being officially axed, and I know that you can't get Hero Designer to accept it for a 6e build, but I always hope there is a new guy out there reading these threads....  That was more for him.   
 
My own "issue" (I can't say complaint because I still use both of these things the way that I believe they were meant to be used) with Elemental Control was the interpretation that the community took and ran with for both Elemental Control and Multipower. 
 
You remember the early days: we had nothing.  No settings, no modules, just the rules books.  Eventually we got an adventure or two (honesty time: the original Island of Dr D was _terrible_, and we all know it.  Christopher's rework of that piece is a billion miles ahead of the original-not just for the update, but because it is an RPG adventure and not just a war game capture-the-flag scenario.) and we got an enemies book.   We didn't even have Adventurers club or a third-party rag with any interest in us in the early days. Best of all, we didn't have an internet.  We could do whatever made us feel right about the game and not have to check in to make sure that remote faceless strangers agreed with us, and us remote faceless strangers couldn't get our kicks telling you that you were completely wrong, and therefore were not having a good time correctly. 
 
All we had were the examples in the rules, and by dribbles, in latter supplemental works. 
 
From those examples - the 'how-to' bits in the rules and the actual characters that we would come across, I got the distinct understanding that Elemental Control was more of a theme thing-- like Spiderman had a spider theme, and all of his wall crawling, leaping, and strength would fit into that, _and so could his web shooters _. 
 
Multipower, however, seemed to be reserved for characters who had single power source that they could use multiple ways:  my command of gravity waves let's me fly, repel objects, create strength-sapping zones of heavy gravity, and generate concussive waves of tightly-mixed variable gravities, doing massive damage to whatever I strike. 
 
I can use my ability to create and manipulate heat to loft myself on tightly-controlled thermals, generate blasts of white-hot flame, and create a wall of heat so intense projectiles are vaporized before they get near me. 
 
All of these are _super cool_, right? 
 
And they are _one power_.  The very nature of Multipower demonstrates that:  I buy a control, which has the bulk of my 'stored geavity' or whatever, and slots, each of which represents things that I can do with that gravity. 
 
In fact, because I can only generate so much intense heat, if I raise my forcefield to it's maximum, I have to sort of hover, because there is barely enough left over to fly; blasting someone is just out of the question.  (anyone else remember turning off Flight in mid-air, using a held action to attack full-force, and then turning Flight back on?  Anyone?  Okay; it's just me.) 
 
If you went with ultra slots, it was _painfully_ obvious that you were manipulating a single power source. 
 
The idea held for guns, too- a perinnial favorite build of the Multipower because then you could take that sweet Focus limitation as well (as you do when you are building 'the most expensive way'    ).  You have six slots, (usually Ultras) representing different ammo or different features of the gun. 
 
This holds up as evidence that you really have only a single power: Gun.  If Arkelos the Mage casts "Dispell: Gun," you are _screwed.  If the GM decides it is time for that Focus limitation to bite you just a bit, you do not have any of your slots because you lost the only one power you had: Gun. 
 
The most telling thing- to me, I mean-- was the rebate.  The rebate was _huge_ (still is) for Multipower, which suggested some significant drawbacks.  In modern discussions, when someone prooeses a 'not in the presence of X' type build where they cannot use one power when using another, or the two are somehow scaled, we recommend 'lockout' and similar limitations, which are fine, of course, but they don't offer the rebate value of Multipower. 
 
Finally, and this one goes all the way back to 1e: Multipower did not start out listed as a power framework.  It was listed as a power. (as was Elemental Control, actually).  I know a lot of you that never played 1e bought the Bundle of Holding when it popped up.  Go check it out: Multipower was listed as a power that allowed one set of points to feed multiple abilities.  Much like today; the wording really hasn't changed much at all. One set of points rolling from one power to another, or being split amongst the slots-- a single power : a multi-use power; a power that can be tapped and expressed multiple ways. 
 
So from the earliest days of Power Drain, we applied those Drains to _the whole multipower_.  We treated it as one power.  To this day, those are the types of builds for which I encourage Multipower (assuming the player is willing to accept the inherent drawbacks, of course). 
 
Now until I got online, I had no idea people bagged on Elemental Control so badly.  (I also had no idea how many people were using incorrectly, and over-discounting the powers within, but that's another story.  Well, a couple of examples: pay full price for your most expensive power and all others are half price.  Pay full points for your first power, and all others are half price.  How many people, do you suppose, had Instant Change or +1 STR as their first power at _that_ table?!). 
 
From chat rooms, then to Red October, and finally to these boards, people were constantly trashing Elemental Control.  (I would like to point out that, much like "Killing Attack is broken!"  the complaints almost always seemed to come from the "points are for game balance" camp.  I do not know if that is significant, but the possibility is strong enough that it seems worth mentioning.  Ironically, when used properly, the discount for EC didn't outweigh that of Multipower until you got up to eight or more powers, possibly more depending on how you built (you could over-pay on your control and end up paying too much for a slot with a low-cost power in it, or underpay your control cost and end up paying additional full-cost points far too often.  You want my honest ooinion?  People bagged on EC because it was complicated. )
 
Then along came- was it 4e or 5e?  I seem to remember it was 5e, but that may just be the first time I noticed it- the declaration that Elemental Control was, in fact, one single power with Multiple aspects, and that adjustment powers that affected any EC power affected all EC powers, etc. 
 
Now I have read everything 4e, just as many of you have.  I am pretty certain that I own everything 4e up on the bookshelves, including the dual-stat ICE stuff, because if you wanted a module for anything that wasn't Champions, then you had best be playing Fantasy HERO.  (For those who did not venture into the world of Kulthea, it could be a bit dark.  It could also be a bit murder-hobo ish, if you weren't careful.) 
 
Anyway, I have read it.  Yes; I saw the same trends as everyone else: Multipower popping up on lots of places I would have gone with EC, and a few the other way around.  My only thoughts at the time where, the construct doesn't really seem abusive, and Multipower _is_ easier to use, but the limitations..... 
 
Anyway we got to a point where the official rules stated that EC now has all the drawbacks that you assumed MP had, and MP does not. 
 
And I just kinda moped right out of that.  Well, there commentary.  So much commentary.  So very much overly-colorful commentary.... 
 
Some of the less colorful was "yes; this make sense.  Because Peter Parker got bitten by a radioactive spider who came back a week later and handed him some sweet web-shooting bracelets.  That is just how these things go.  Because draining his web"-shooters should automatically reduce his vertical leap. 
 
 
Anyway, as has been suggested before, "Unified Power," applied to enough slots, will eventually get you to the rebate point that Elemental Control used to get you, but it removes all the hoops, so now you can apply it to two powers.   Not gonna stop using EC, though, and you aren't going to get all of your powers modified because one got adjusted. You will with Multipower, though. 
 
 
Gid dinged right it is!  More than anything, this is the biggest use I have for it these days. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Agreed again! 
 
Dude, even an inch of stretching, held as a surprise, can totally change a tactical situation, plus the fun things you can do: ersatz Swinging, climbing, grabs and holds.  By far, though, my favorite use of just a small amount of Stretching is "Surprise! Looks like _one of us_ is in melee range!" 
 
 
 
That!  That right there!  Cascade skills are the thing for heroic or realistic type games, and I heartily encourage someone who does not write the rules (because I cannot imagine anyone thinking we need a longer rule book) to give this a try.  You might go around and gather your players' skills and create your own lists for them to have when playing, though I would recommend asking your players something like "pick 5 skills that fall under that heading that you want at that level, then pick either two each from each of those that you want at (some lower level)" or even  "then pick ten skills under that main heading you want at (some lower level), and possibly go to 15 total on a tertiary level. 
 
Shoot me, but I think that as an exercise, it would be _awesome_!  Of course, I forgot to take all of my blood pressure and heart meds today, so I am feeling much better than I have in months, with energy and excitement to spare, so bear with my enthusiasm, please. 
 
I think it would be fun to do; seriously.  I also think it would be a pain the rear to play, because there will be some aspect of police work that you or the player did not consider, and now he doesn't know how to do that. 
 
So here is an alternative:  pick X amount of skills that believe comprise your specialty in 'police work.'. Pick Y amount that you are only passingly familiar with.  The first set will be at the level of your Police work skill; the second set will be at 8 or less; all other aspects will be at (some agreeable midpoint).  This way, the player gets to specify both his strengths and his weaknesses, but he won't necessarily come up shot in the clutch because he had to create a specific list of everything he knows. 
 
When Police work goes up, they all go up by the same amount, or, just to keep it lively, all but one from each group goes up with it (players choice, of course).  You get a degree of granularity (possibly with increasing variation), and you are still reasonably close to Hero-normal. 
 
Just thoughts, and I would love to see someone try them.  I likely won't, because I took a lot of inspiration from Marc Miller and don't often play a skills-heavy game: buy skills for things that you do exceptionally well, and we will do characteristics rolls or what-have-you for things that you just know or know about.  (in supers, anyway). 
 
 
 
 
Right up until you are looked in a windowless room, anyway. 
 

 
I  agree with the sentiment, thought, that skills are priced a bit high, at least for a superhero game.  That is why I tend to (see above). 
 
For heroic games, I find them to be about right, and I don't go o super-granular (like that guy that wants me to tell him what five parts of my job I suck at).   I run them tighter than I do in supers, but I also keep in mind that for normals, skills kind of _are_ their "special powers," so the pricing seems more fair.  Besides, I fold a few things into them, 
 
Even then, though, this is a conversation about value for your points, and points balance because costs are similar and values are not.  It doesn't make one of them wrongly"-costed, though.  Still, because the skill system in Hero is so fascinatingly devoid of explanation, the best thing I can suggest is selecting a level of breadth that you are comfortable with: woodcraft instead of survival, msybe: I can survive, build a fire, hunt game, skin it and tan the hide, and build a log cabin.  I can dig a well, read the seasons in tree bark, and the weather by the turn of the leaves.  I can walk without leaving a trail, and am unimpeded by underbrush.  I can craft a jug from tree bark and a canoe from deerskin.
 
That sort of thing. 
 
 
 
 
Sorry; wrong quote. 
 
 
 
That's the quote.  And honestly, I feel that stating precisely that would be far, far better that saying "use the most expensive build" and then demonstrably violating it a few dozen times in the rules ever was. 
 
It encourages the new player or GM to get comfortable with the rules-comfortable enough to identify a 'cheaty build' - and provides actionable advice: you make a build that does the thing, but it should have a reasonable price tag.  It also doesn't say hat this price tag has to be the most expensive option.  It just works better all around. 
 
Still, there is one more thought,  but not right here. 
 
 
 
Right here. 
 
I think we should _encourage _ chesty builds, at least for a while.  We _all_ did it during our learning phase.  We did it because it was _fun_!  We all _loved_ coming up with something outlandish (I once wiped out all my friends with a super I had built on eighty-eight points.   It was _awesome_!) 
 
I can one-hundred percent truthfully say that if it wasn't for various challenges from Jim like 'we are doing a free for all tonight.  You have one hundred fifty points to make a character, and we start fighting in twenty minutes, " that there is very little chance that I would know this system the way I do, or that I would have even been interested in learning it so deeply.  (I have to say that we never really appreciated Jim as the GM he was.  So much of what he did that we thought of as silly, or copping out because he had forgotten to prepare something, or tons of other things-- he had been gone for over a decade before I really understood how much he had taught me about not just learning a gsmr, but understanding it and running it in a way that worked for everyone-players and characters-at the table that nihht- about not just _knowing_ the rules, but totally _underdstanding_ them-- not as instructions, but as a favorite piece of fiction, to be enjoyed over and over.  Jim was awesome, and I didn't know it in time to properly thank him. 
 
 
Anyway, you can't really _see_ some of the more clever "cheaty builds" until you know exactly what you are looking for.  Or, as my gransfather once said, you don't look anywhere you don't already know a fella could hide. 
 
There are a number of reasons-famiarity with the system being topmost-that I feel we should _encoursge_ cheaty builds, even if only as a fun exercise with which one could do a battle Royale and show off to his friends. 
 
I also think it might be helpful to explain that this type of build can be harmful to a campaign, where not every player is going to be as savy as any other player, and mention that learning to "cheat" on a legendary scale can both demonstrate the problems with such builds, and help lewnr how to look for them.  Whatever else we might do, I think we should encourage it as a 'special ourpose' sort of event that is catahrticc every now and again. 
 
I still enjoy doing it once in a while, and I have ebeen playing a long time.  I learned so many things that way: Crain End (old rules) was stupid cheap; drain Recovery was more brutal than Driain Body, and for the same price.  Nothing goes with T-form like a nice round of Drain: Bidy, though.  Desolid: usable as Attack takes anyone completely out of combat, instantly.  +10 Recovery usable as attack makes you everyone's favorite teammate. 
 
These aren't particularly cheaty, mind you.  They re just a list of some of my favorites from way back when. 
 
 
 
Exactly. 
 
 
 
You're welcome, Sir. 
 
Always delighted to make an OG Champions playtester happy.   
 
 
 
 
Well, you know I didn't.   
 
Hinestly, I would have loved to see the new ideas keep coming in the Champions II and Champions III type format.    You know: here are a few new ideas, and we have some revamps if you have found X to be too troublesme.  A few disads, and we thought you might like these new disadvantages.  That sort of thing.
 
Maybe one a year, and after 5 of them, release a new core rules that is the original rules with the new material worked in.  I know me well enough to tell you that I would buy bith: I couldn't wait five years for the new edition, so I would buy the updates as they came about, then I would buy the new edition to have it all organized so I wouldn't be flipping throu so many books to find what I want.  Your core system wouldn't change: you would just have more powers, Disadvantages, limitations, and such to play with.
 
4e got some mileage like that out of Hero System Almanac, but it hasn't really been done since.  One could say the APGs were kind of like that, but I read them essentially as 'here are some pre-built powers you might like" with some light advice scattered about. 
 
 
 
 
Oh, I agree.  I very much agree.  But as I said: it was an example of something that we have all seen right here.  I chose this example specifically because I was confident it didn't involve anyone here; I wasn't trying to call anyone out. 
 
Barely related note: has anyone seen Filksinger since Red October shut down?  I miss that guy. 
 
 
 
 
 
This isn't even an edition complaint.  This happened in the age of chat rooms!  When we all had free internet because those AOL disks just kept coming.... 
 
At the very latest, they could have been playing 4e.  This was a the game is the mechanics / the game is what you do debate: which is more important?  Creatively solving the problem with the resources and mechanics at hand, or mandating every mechanic be adhered to at the expense of a creative solution debate.  This was the birth of 'Powe skill' kind of debate, where we created a catch-all to make certain that no possible action goes uncharged for. 
 
 
 
 
That is because it _is_ clever.  It is players using their skull meat to plumb the depths of possibility, and teaching themselves how the elements of the game can be combined to interesting effect.  I cannot discourage that practice as an exercise because it has too much value as a method of learning. 
 
 
 
 
Also agreed.  It should not be allowed in a "regular" game, but I still think a nice throw-away munchkins cage match can inspire a lot of self-directed learning. 
 
 
 
Ditto on most counts. 
 
 
 
There is a guy on this board who might want to compare notes with you.  He is currently running a HERO Star Wars game.
 
 
 
 
You still remember how much fun it was at the time, though, right?  Who are we to suggest depriving new players of those sensations when there is so much to be learned from the doing? 
 
 
 
You lost me there, Sir. 
 
 
 
Really?  You never at any point saw character creation as its own game, and sat down to see how much you could get for some minimal amount of points?  Not once?  Or wondered about a particular combination of powers or moddlifiers- never wondered enough to just try it and see what happened? 
 
 
 
Similar here, but that is primarily because I am browsing for things I might want to add to my already-extant game; I have zero quibbles about just ignoring rules changes or new constructs with which I disagree. 
 
 
 
Agreed completely. 
 
 
 

In a note similar to what GM Joe said, the skill system many of you are looking for kind of exists in the Mutants & Masterminds, Third Edition system. The Expertise skill there is a catch all that allows characters to include a profession, specialized knowledge, or a catch-all for a skill that everything else doesn't cover. In the example of the PS: Policeman skill above, you'd use the Expertise: Policeman in basically the same way. 
 
Personally, I enjoy the more inflated skill system that Hero has had since 4th ed. I realize I may be in the minority in this thread, but the skill list has been something that's helped me define characters better. What's the skill differences between Reed Richards, Hank Pym, Tony Stark, and Bruce Banner? Depending on the system, not much. Using a more broad skill list, they'd all have science/scientist. In Hero, however, it's more specific and leans into the individual skills better. SS: Quantum Physics, SS: Physics, SS: Engineering, SS: Robotics, etc. For me, it works better. 

I just bash together rules systems from hero as I like. For instance in my 6th Ed star wars game to kinda imitate the way star wars characters have vague skill set defined more by drama then we'll defined skill trees I just have each player spend 10, 15, or 20 pts on one or two "professions"  or skill sets that covers the skills they could have. Examples A Doctor is 10 pts, a Spacer is 15 pts, and Jedi is 20 pts, based on how broad I think the profession will be. I usually allow 2 skill sets.
 
From there the character can use any skill that seems appropriate at the time for their character. This cover everything besides skill levels most skills are obvious some take a brief back and forth and then if I agree with the player I decide if it's an 8-, 11-, or a full skill with levels. There are some other granularity here but that less important right now. 
 
I have a player wanting to use sixth but wants to use ECs again, and I showed him how to fake it in Hero Designer even though I don't miss Elemental Controla. 
 
"Balance" doesn't mean much to me. The points give me a rough idea of how Powerful something will be, and that's all. I stopped capping active points in champions games at the tale end of 4th edition because I didn't like how samey everything always felt. I use a variety of magic systems that go way off the rails in terms of what players are actually "paying for". But the powers (spells/abilities) beneath those systems are built out of the various 6th edition tools.  
 
I enjoy using Hero as a means of building fun systems that lay over the underlying game rules. Especially since I don't run much champions anymore. I'd still probably run that mostly RAW. 
 
I have never felt terribly compelled to "buy everything" in any addition out side of champions, and even then only the core ideas of the character needed to be ironed out. I love for players to use powers creatively, I will get players to buy powers they clearly are trying to emulate but the one or two times, yeah use your swing line to tie people up, neat. If you want for that to be actually effective in a fight let's buy an entangle for you.
 
I also still call Complications Disads, and the PCs have inches on their sheets not meters. Those feel sort of arbitrary to me.
 
I feel less inhibited by hero's RAW then many others systems, which may be counter intuitive, but I think it's just decades of playing it through multiple editions.
 
PS crap now I'm writing essays on the topic.

I just bash together rules systems from hero as I like. For instance in my 6th Ed star wars game to kinda imitate the way star wars characters have vague skill set defined more by drama then we'll defined skill trees I just have each player spend 10, 15, or 20 pts on one or two "professions"  or skill sets that covers the skills they could have. Examples A Doctor is 10 pts, a Spacer is 15 pts, and Jedi is 20 pts, based on how broad I think the profession will be. I usually allow 2 skill sets.
 
From there the character can use any skill that seems appropriate at the time for their character. This cover everything besides skill levels most skills are obvious some take a brief back and forth and then if I agree with the player I decide if it's an 8-, 11-, or a full skill with levels. There are some other granularity here but that less important right now. 
 
I have a player wanting to use sixth but wants to use ECs again, and I showed him how to fake it in Hero Designer even though I don't miss Elemental Controla. 
 
"Balance" doesn't mean much to me. The points give me a rough idea of how Powerful something will be, and that's all. I stopped capping active points in champions games at the tale end of 4th edition because I didn't like how samey everything always felt. I use a variety of magic systems that go way off the rails in terms of what players are actually "paying for". But the powers (spells/abilities) beneath those systems are built out of the various 6th edition tools.  
 
I enjoy using Hero as a means of building fun systems that lay over the underlying game rules. Especially since I don't run much champions anymore. I'd still probably run that mostly RAW. 
 
I have never felt terribly compelled to "buy everything" in any addition out side of champions, and even then only the core ideas of the character needed to be ironed out. I love for players to use powers creatively, I will get players to buy powers they clearly are trying to emulate but the one or two times, yeah use your swing line to tie people up, neat. If you want for that to be actually effective in a fight let's buy an entangle for you.
 
I also still call Complications Disads, and the PCs have inches on their sheets not meters. Those feel sort of arbitrary to me.
 
I feel less inhibited by hero's RAW then many others systems, which may be counter intuitive, but I think it's just decades of playing it through multiple editions.
 
PS crap now I'm writing essays on the topic.

I just bash together rules systems from hero as I like. For instance in my 6th Ed star wars game to kinda imitate the way star wars characters have vague skill set defined more by drama then we'll defined skill trees I just have each player spend 10, 15, or 20 pts on one or two "professions"  or skill sets that covers the skills they could have. Examples A Doctor is 10 pts, a Spacer is 15 pts, and Jedi is 20 pts, based on how broad I think the profession will be. I usually allow 2 skill sets.
 
From there the character can use any skill that seems appropriate at the time for their character. This cover everything besides skill levels most skills are obvious some take a brief back and forth and then if I agree with the player I decide if it's an 8-, 11-, or a full skill with levels. There are some other granularity here but that less important right now. 
 
I have a player wanting to use sixth but wants to use ECs again, and I showed him how to fake it in Hero Designer even though I don't miss Elemental Controla. 
 
"Balance" doesn't mean much to me. The points give me a rough idea of how Powerful something will be, and that's all. I stopped capping active points in champions games at the tale end of 4th edition because I didn't like how samey everything always felt. I use a variety of magic systems that go way off the rails in terms of what players are actually "paying for". But the powers (spells/abilities) beneath those systems are built out of the various 6th edition tools.  
 
I enjoy using Hero as a means of building fun systems that lay over the underlying game rules. Especially since I don't run much champions anymore. I'd still probably run that mostly RAW. 
 
I have never felt terribly compelled to "buy everything" in any addition out side of champions, and even then only the core ideas of the character needed to be ironed out. I love for players to use powers creatively, I will get players to buy powers they clearly are trying to emulate but the one or two times, yeah use your swing line to tie people up, neat. If you want for that to be actually effective in a fight let's buy an entangle for you.
 
I also still call Complications Disads, and the PCs have inches on their sheets not meters. Those feel sort of arbitrary to me.
 
I feel less inhibited by hero's RAW then many others systems, which may be counter intuitive, but I think it's just decades of playing it through multiple editions.
 
PS crap now I'm writing essays on the topic.

I'm with you, here.

I never really "got" this logical train.  Every time I bought a new edition, I saw it as new suggestions on how to play.  I guess my approach to the game was never to know/master/follow the rules but to play the game. 
 
As such each new edition was additional possibility, not an increasingly heavy blanket on my creativity.
 
I have never talked about whether I play 2nd edition, or 4th edition or 6th edition, simply that I play Champions. 
 
As a player I would comply with all the rules of the table (I would tell the GM I intended to be book legal but they would need to check because I make so many assumptions in my head) and be content to adjust my character as the GM wanted.
 
Ultimately I will play my powers not the game mechanics.  If the GM focusses too heavily on the mechanics (of whatever edition) then we might not be a great match.
 
Doc

Coming up with loopholes and abusive tweaks may have seemed pretty clever at the time, but frankly these days it's mostly a way to make yourself unwelcome at most tables. GMing Champions is enough work as it is, and having to audit every damn line on THAT GUY's character sheet is getting close to camel's back territory.

I have played in a 5e campaign a few years back. We had a blast. Most games can be great if you like the players around the table with you. 

I agree, the system matters less than the players and GM.  A good system makes things better, and a worse system makes things less fun, but you can still have a blast.  You can have a fun Tunnels & Trolls campaign, or a memorable Top Secret game.  You can play RuneQuest or AD&D, or Universe and have fun.
 
But the system makes things better.  Bad mechanics annoy and grate at me even when I am enjoying a game.

My bit of smugness is:
 
D&D hasn't been the best RPG since it was the only RPG.