Talk:Champions (role-playing game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Role-playing games Portal

Contents 1 Is this a Neutral article? 2 Champions system vs. other systems 3 Champions unchanged? 4 Definately need rewrite 5 The article is now neutral

[edit] Is this a Neutral article?

Edits to correct neutrality and other issues are in progress on my sandbox. User:Markspace/sandbox E.T.A is two months. Markspace 05:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that this article is in line with Wikipedia requirements for a neutral point of view. I would rewrite this, but I do not play Champions. I numbercrunch too much to take less than 4 hours to make a character, so I go for simplicity. I would rather leave it to the people that know it best. I do feel that this needs serious attention if it is to be kept in Wikipedia.

Specifically in the history and revisions section ther eare some issues I have

The Champions rules have remained essentially unchanged from the original 1981 edition, albeit it is now much more detailed and expanded. No other popular role-playing system has endured so long without a major revision. The reason given is generally that the system is extremely flexible for character generation and combat, and is very well balanced. Its very endurance has given it the benefit of years of play-testing.

This paragraph contains what Wikipedia refers to as Weasle Words. The reason given is generally is one of the weasel phrases which is used to exempt from need for citation of an opinion. If controversy exists, that is ok, citing both sides and where the arguments are represented, but with no citation, this needs to be removed.

In comparison to some game systems, Champions (and the Hero System overall) can seem byzantine and open-ended. However, its enduring fandom testifies to its robustness and elegance.

No citation and full of review/judgement of the system should automatically flag this as non-neutral.Slavlin 06:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be, though much of the information in this section comes from discussion boards, both at Hero Games' own site and (for most of the criticism) elsewhere. In fact, most of the controversy over the Hero System's complexity (too much math vs less than D20) is anecdotal. I personally am not sure how to cite such sources. BobGreenwade 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ol' Slavlin may have some points. The article could be edited up a bit. "No other popular role-playing system has endured so long without a major revision" sounds pretty editorial to me. We should clean up some of the fanboyism in the article. It may not be apparent to us, but there seems to be a bit of it in there. I'm really busy right now, so I'm going to let this sit a bit, but if no one takes it in a month or so I'll try to sit down and tackle it. -- Markspace 06:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (Gojira on the Hero boards.)

Month plus is gone. I'll add a note to the Hero boards asking for help editing. Some of the people who write for Hero Games hang out there, so I hope to get some actual published authors to help out. Editing to start soonish. -- Markspace 05:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (Gojira on the Hero boards.)

[edit] Champions system vs. other systems

Is a discussion on the relative "realism" of the Champions system vs. other systems relevant to this article? I know many people who tried to codify Champions statistics to real world verifiable things such as lifting power, reflexes and such. They were all fairly inaccurate. I believe Champions' problem in this regard is that the strength system must cover a far wider range of capability than, say, the strength of a D&D character.

Also, the comparisons between Champions and other game systems strike me as a little biased. I think a more balanced discussion about the merits of different game systems might be in order. Champions benefits from a system that allows more to be done with a character at the expense of extra complexity. It takes forever to run a complex combat, for example. D&D has the advantage of simplicity and speed, sacrificing flexibility. There is no way, for example, to differentiate between a miss because somebody dodged and a “miss” that simply pinged off armour.

As long as your comments can be backed-up by sources, it should be fine. But don't give a straight-up review of the system. That is strictly taboo on Wikipedia. But comparisons are relavant and useful. — Frecklefoot | Talk June 28, 2005 16:52 (UTC)

On the realism issue, I think you are correct. Hero System really is not more real than any other system. It is more *detailed*, as you suggest, than other systems such as D20. With 7 primary stats and 5 derived ones, there's a lot more goin' on than DnD. Whether that's an advantage depends on your perspective. On the comparisons, I think you are ok here too. Anything to make the article less biased is probably a good idea. (Not that I think it is overtly biased as is, just that any slight biased should be edited out.) I say--your call. (Gojira from the Hero boards).

Actually there are 8 primary Characteristics (STR, DEX, CON, BODY, INT, EGO, PRE, and COM) and 6 derived (PD, ED, SPD, REC, END, and STUN). But otherwise I agree. — BobGreenwade 20:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, ever since I lost those digits in an industrial accident I don't count so good. :-P --Gojira

[edit] Champions unchanged?

I haven't played Champions since 4th edition, but 2nd, 3rd, and 4th each had real differences, even if they were subtle.

And surely Call of Cthulhu has mechanics as unchanged -- if not less so -- than Champions/Hero?

[edit] Definately need rewrite

I agree this article needs an overhaul. It seems very opinionated and not particularly factual. I Have been playing Champions in one form or another for over 20 years, so I'd be interested to consult for a rewrite. --Andacar

[edit] The article is now neutral

Unless someone disagrees, I'm going to remove the nomination for the discussion of the article's neutrality. I've deleted most of the fanboy, "opinion" stuff. If I missed anything, let me know, or feel free to fix the article further. Rray 13:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)