Quote from: RunningLaser;940678The 4th edition of Champions isn't as bad as 5th and 6th, at least from an eye bleed standpoint.  Makes me think that the earlier editions were probably even easier.

The problem with 4th edition Champions was not the system itself. But in the fact that the company never established a set of character guidelines for author submitted material. And as a result, you ended up with sourcebooks operating on wildly different power levels. It was a mess to go through. To say the least.

As a longtime Champions gamer: I prefer the 4th edition baseline power levels. Because they kept characters pretty basic. 5th and 6th editions pushed character complexity too far for my comfort.

My tastes have also matured and shifted. Away from high complexity, high mechanics systems like Hero. To more story focused games. Like Icons, FATE, Daring Comics, and Supers.

Story to me has become the most important driver in the RPGs I play and run. What I want to see from players is: Characters who have lots of juicy story leads for a GM to be able to interact with and use in an entertaining manner. Not just a collection of character points that have little meaning behind them.

Too many times with Champions: I would see players loading their characters down with Disadvantages/Complications just to get the character points for them. But in play, they would completely forget them. And they would end up having little meaning or actual contribution to the campaign they were playing.

I commonly watched characters treated as little more than board game pieces. And combat being treated as the totality of the experience. And I didn't find that fun. I found it absolutely boring.

Quote from: James Gillen;943047Put it this way- anybody who wants to bitch about Hero System math has obviously never played GURPS.

JG

I have.

And my problem with GURPS wasn't its math. It was the fact that characters that exceeded human power levels caused the system to fall apart.

There is only so much fudging a GM can do in GURPS when they have to deal with characters that break the system.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;944649I have.

And my problem with GURPS wasn't its math. It was the fact that characters that exceeded human power levels caused the system to fall apart.

There is only so much fudging a GM can do in GURPS when they have to deal with characters that break the system.

Well, when I say too much math, I mean even in terms of the system's favored power levels.  I speak mainly of using vehicles in GURPS WW2 sourcebooks.  Which matters given that the strength of something like a Sherman tank was its ability to be modified in the field, which seems to imply a system that will allow you to modify a vehicle.  And GURPS WW2 was the "Lite" version of the system.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;944660Well, when I say too much math, I mean even in terms of the system's favored power levels.  I speak mainly of using vehicles in GURPS WW2 sourcebooks.  Which matters given that the strength of something like a Sherman tank was its ability to be modified in the field, which seems to imply a system that will allow you to modify a vehicle.  And GURPS WW2 was the "Lite" version of the system.

JG

Yes, Well I never got into the vehicle side of it. Which was probably for the best.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;944675Yes, Well I never got into the vehicle side of it. Which was probably for the best.

Probably.

jg

Champions and GURPS were both awful for supers.  So was DC Heroes, though.

Quote from: RPGPundit;945163Champions and GURPS were both awful for supers.  So was DC Heroes, though.

DC Heroes was not good, but it had some genre simulation, and it was certainly better for that task than GURPS.

JG

Quote from: RPGPundit;945163Champions and GURPS were both awful for supers.  So was DC Heroes, though.

Once again Pundit comments, without providing any kind of support for his comment, on a game he likely never played. Good to see consistency somewhere in the world.

Quote from: Matt;945263Once again Pundit comments, without providing any kind of support for his comment, on a game he likely never played. Good to see consistency somewhere in the world.

Actually. He's right.

GURPS and Hero best handle human power levels. Beyond that. The character generation systems start falling apart. And become unwieldy.

I say this: Because I have extensive experience with both systems.

Wait, how can Champions be bad at emulating supers? That's the system's original genre, isn't it?

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;945270Actually. He's right.

Why? Give some details or you're just doing the Pundit, presenting opinions as facts.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;945283Wait, how can Champions be bad at emulating supers? That's the system's original genre, isn't it?

It was the first genre. However. The system worked far better for games at the heroic level. Where the impact of the power creation system was mostly disregarded.

Justice Inc. and Danger International were the most successful executions of the Hero System. But those games almost completely did away with the power creation cruft. They simulated their genres very well. But did not tip the complexity scale the way Champions did.

Even when they did initial editions of Fantasy Hero. They kept things simple. They only used the bare basics of power creation for spells and such. But left out the more complex constructs. Like Elemental Controls, Multipowers, and Variable Power Pools. They kept it simple. And it worked.

Power creation has always been the problem with the Hero System. It's where the complexity raises its head the most. And that system outright rewards people for statting absolutely everything out to great detail. It is also where it works against the game's playability.

The workload to run Champions is high. The higher the detail of characters. The more time it takes for every level of campaign management on the GM's end.

And heaven forbid if you have immature players who get off on the game's slant toward rewarding complexity. They have a tendency to ratchet up the workload on the GM to overbearing levels.

I co-GM'd a 6th Edition Champions campaign a couple of years ago. We ended up having a pair of uncooperative immature players that finally pushed the group to complete detonation.

One of those players was fixated on exploiting flaws in the game system. Whenever the GMs went through his characters and found problems, he would instantly make another that was just as exploitive in another way. Which detracted heavily from the ability of the GMs involved to focus on creating good story content. And actually entertaining the whole group. Instead of just giving all of their attention to that one player.

The other player didn't want to contribute anything to the group at all. He expected everybody else to provide his entertainment. But never once reciprocated. Never once contributed actual ideas or any real participation in said campaign. He was just occupying a seat. Expecting everybody else to do for him.

GAH! Just thinking about those two brings back waves of frustration!

Are you saying that HERO is responsible for creating powergaming and selfish players?  I can understand the frustration with dealing with those sorts of players but I don't think the particular game being played had anything to do with their behavior.  Any successful and fun RPG campaign requires a social contract among all participants.  

HM

Quote from: Hyper-Man;945324Are you saying that HERO is responsible for creating powergaming and selfish players?  I can understand the frustration with dealing with those sorts of players but I don't think the particular game being played had anything to do with their behavior.  Any successful and fun RPG campaign requires a social contract among all participants.  

HM

No. I'm not. Powergamers have existed since before roleplaying games were even a glimmer in Gygax's eye. Wargaming has been infested with them for most of my life's memory.

This isn't exclusively a Hero System thing. It's a whole hobby thing. The more complicated a system tends to be, the more prone misuse and exploitation it is. Some players just can't help themselves. They truly lack the maturity to play well with others.

This may be a "nerd hobby". But I don't think anyone should be expected to or forced to accept immature unacceptable behavior. The buck has to stop some place.

But one thing here absolutely cannot be ignored. And that is the culture that has developed around these complex game systems. The culture certainly has its bad actors.

But the complex game systems do enable and feed that culture of bad actors. Ignoring that componant of the condition only helps in furthering that culture of bad actors.