You are here

"Crisis on campus!" never goes out of style [Champions Now]

Introducing Silverbeak! Because adding Monsanto to a welter of corporate and government ownership that already includes ICE, Blackwater/Xe, and the U.S. Army isn't too much, no, not at all.

For the system, we're still using the very slightly altered original rules that were associated with the Kickstarter, a fair piece behind my current notes for the game. But it's really valuable to keep playing with these, as cleaning up about a dozen difficult patches prepares the way for more fundamental re-thinks.

If anyone wants, I'd be happy to talk more about those in the comments. Obviously (for those who've been paying attention), I changed rules for some of the most significant details in the game: Focus, Killing Attacks, and Endurance, as well as altering some of the point structure for Disadvantages. It doesn't seem like much - not much more than editing, perhaps, but I submit that all of play is so affected by these, it's important to see how that goes in isolation before I get all revolutionary.

I'm burning through the recordings that got backlogged throughout June, and figuring out why that happened. It's not just about the Kickstarter. One reason is that in moving to the new office space, I've run into audio problems - there's a lot of unshielded concrete at the moment, and sometimes my sound gets really awful in the recording but I can't tell while I'm doing it. That makes editing painful and frustrating because I know I'm making a low-grade thing. I'm getting some stuff on the walls that will fix it.

That gets multiplied by the strange increase in length lately. I really don't know how we went for three hours in this one, and between this and a couple similar recordings recently, I decided to keep an eye on that from now on. The Sorcerer Musik game ran in approximately hour-and-fifteen-minute chunks, with plenty of events in each, and even the RuneQuest sessions (with a notoriously time-intensive system) weren't like this, so I think I'm mishandling the interface. Anyway, we've played two sessions since this one, and they're a lot shorter.

Department: 
Actual Play

Comments

In the kickstarter you mentioned that you were developing two games – one that was an updated version of the original champions and one that’s a whole new game. Is the playtest document something like the updated version you mentioned? Will the new game be radically different?

Ron Edwards's picture

This has always been a little sketchy, but yes, there are really two goals. One is something you can recognize as thoroughly tweaked Champions, based on first-generation only, for which the current playtest document is only a start. I guess you could think of it as Ron's version of what Steve did with 6th edition, except that he branched from where 5th left off, and I'm branching from where 3rd left off instead, and our separate trajectories aren't the same (although mutually appreciated). It will be completed through the course of the summer, and may not be in the actual publication, or if so, probably as a summary appendix kind of thing.

The other is an ambitious task: a redesign for a much more understandable, accessible game that is still entirely recognizable as Champions' unique governing logic. This is what you get in Champions Now as a publication, when you have it or buy it as a game. I don't mind saying that nothing ever published, no RPG, has ever managed to do this, and although I have notes and some well-playtested components, I am really looking forward to getting the prototype ready for backers later this year and seeing what happens when it's out of my hands.

I'm excited to see the ambitious version.

Ross's picture

I think an interesting question is why GMs love hero on hero fights so much? (The GM of the other champions game I'm playing was also very happy why he got the heroes punching each other) 

Clearly it's a genre convention and, as happens here, is something that Champions facilitates via the disadvantages, at least in part. I'm not suggesting it's something to avoid, I enjoyed this quite a bit though I was a little worried Santiago may have found it less fun.  However it does bring into sharp relief something we have already talked a bit about - that champions combat works when players focus on what objectives their characters have and what resources they have to achieve them, not as a grind down of stun and body until someone is knocked out. Clearly as soon as Finn got his enraged under control his objectives shifted and the confrontation de-escalated... a bit, I mean he only almost started a riot!

I'm wondering if this is an area that needs some explicit discussion in the final game, maybe more around dealing with the aftermath - tune in next time to see how Ron does that.  

Ron Edwards's picture

If you’d asked me ten years ago, I would have said, “genre convention,” and either left it there or even denounced it as I have done with 99% of the Mind Control Incidents. But after all the blogging, and associated re-reading and sometimes first-time reading of the 1960s comics … I think there’s some content there. It’s more like Secret Identity – yes, a convention, yes, often used unthinkingly or pro forma … but there to be used in a good way too.

The history matters. Before the 1960s Marvel, I can think of only one dedicated hero-on-hero antagonism in superhero comics, that I know of: the original Human Torch and the Sub-Mariner, conceived, authored, and drawn by Bill Everett. In between massacring Nazis, they fought each other constantly. It was epic, but it had a lot to do with them being respectively not-quite and barely human, deeply alienated characters, not well-disposed toward ordinary human society. The only reason they were “good guys” was because the Nazis pissed them off more than everyone else did, and I’m pretty sure they never had a “wait, you’re actually an OK guy, let’s battle Nazis together from now on” moment.

What Lee’s superhero comics did later was to normalize hero fights, making it kind of expected that most heroes were going to mix it up, even when the whole story was more about dealing with some genuinely nasty antagonist. It was supported by the odd newness to the characters, that they hadn’t been doing their hero thing for decades and didn’t have long-standing and widely-supported reputations as good guys, so it’s not like this guy “just knew” that other guy was all right – the default expectation that he or she wasn’t was not too misguided.

Granted, it played its role as filler, as that’s six pages you don’t have to trouble with plot, but it has its subversive side as well.

For one thing, it threw out the notion that had evolved at DC from 1940 through 1960, that “superhero” had a fixed, understood, and reliable meaning – you were a constable for good, recognizable as such, with exactly the same opinion about society’s ills and the basic way to deal with them as every other hero. Instead, now every hero came to a situation embedded in some more personal trajectory and immediate problem, and with his or her own specific view of how problems should be dealt with. Those are pretty fun to see striking sparks. I’m surprised in re-reading how much of, for instance, the friendly-but-pissed interaction between Spider-Man and the (new) Human Torch makes sense.

For another, it highlighted that each hero was motivated by passions rather than abstractions, and that passions are a tricky guide for action. DC would catch on by about 1970 or so, but the way was paved at Marvel for heroes to succumb to frustration or be under specific tensions or points of view that led them to react violently to other heroes’ presence.

The obvious example of both principles in action is the Hulk, who wandered in and out of everyone else’s titles causing havoc – and you can’t get more “misunderstood” misunderstanding than that. Some of it was pretty heartbreaking, like when different heroes don’t admit to each other that they sympathize with him (each thinking the other considers the Hulk a villain), and so miss their chance to help him.

So my thrill at jumping on the Enrage on Crawl’s sheet, and seeing the roll go that way, was real and – true to your observation – spiked much more fun for me than I’d anticipated. The part of the mechanics that really shines for me, though, isn’t the triggering of that response, but the recovery roll – both its uncertainty, that the player cannot simply choose to have the hero calm down, and the reliable outcome, that when the hero does recover, it is a full recovery and permits reflection and dialogue.

Add new comment