Alternative Disadvantage Concept

[RDU Neil]

Just a thought... (dangerous, I know)

If I was to "make my own Hero based game" one of the things I would do to simplify character creation, would be to keep Disadvantages purely character oriented, but required... and there would only be three.

Example:

Primary Internal Trait: This is the primary motivating factor of your character, both positive and negative. This is the collection of personality characteristics and psychological impetus for why your character does what they do. As a player, you will be expected to consider and give voice to this Internal Trait whenever critical decisions are made or actions taken by the character. This PIT can be a combination of Psychological Limitations, Physical Limitations or any other disadvantages that combine to define this core facet of the character.

Primary External Factor: This is the major game world aspect that is out of direct character control, but exhibits ongoing and direct influence on them in both positive and negative ways. This PEF has shaped their past, drives their present and informs the foreseeable future. As a player, you will be expected to consider and give voice to this External Factor whenever critical decisions are made or actions taken by the character. This PEF can be a combination of Hunteds, Susceptibilities, Social Limitations or any other disadvantages that combine to define this core facet of the character.

Complication: This is a third factor, either internal or external... which is in conflict with or otherwise complicates the character's ability to handle their PIT, PEF or both. It can be any kind of conflicting goal, desire... pressure from an outside source to act against your Internal Trait... or pressure that pushes the character to antagonize their external factor. It must be a situation or concept that is readily part of the game world, that the character would be expected to interact with on a regular basis. This Complication can be a DNPC, Social Limitation, further Hunted or any other disadvantage that provides the character with dramatic story possibilities.

____

There are no points associated with these. They are just required to establish the core of the character outside the point based abilities on the sheet. (Thus if character were intended to be 350 points to start... they get 350... and making the character just requires them to fill out the PIT, PEF and Complication.)

I'd likely change the name from Disadvantages to something else like "The REAL Character" or whatever. :) PIT could easily be called "The Grand Motivation" and the PEF "The Big Threat!" or whatever names fit the genre being approximated.

I don't see any need to attach a mechanic or game rule to this (it is a Game Rule of it's own, of course) but if one wanted to do so, it would be easy with a Hero Points, Fate Point, Luck Chit system like "Once per game session, draw a chit when the player directly invokes their PIT, PEF or Complication to drive the story and their character actions." Or... "Player may make a Power Skill roll with plusses if she is directly invoking one of PIT, PEF or Complication as a result. If a character is acting against their "Real Character" they may suffer minuses as appropriate. Whatever... I haven't really thought this through, it just occurred to me as I was writing.

For me, this would better get to what I use "Disads" for... doesn't force players to "work around" disads they don't want... and encourages players to think outside the numbers in creating a character.

(This does not address Power Limitations, which serve a different game purpose than disads, IMO.)

Oh... and within a certain genre/game world... the game rules or the GM could provide a list of suggested PIT, PEF's and complications as examples and/or for pick and choose. Much could come right out of the current Disad list... just combine them as needed and take out the point cost attached to each.

Anyway... just an idea that would better support my play style.

[prestidigitator]

Hmm. It is an interesting idea. It reminds me slightly of the Nature/Demeanor/(Clan/Tribe/Tradition+Essence) aspect of the World of Darkness games; an aspect of the games I like quite a lot. Obviously this is different, but it seems that it provides a similar role in the game, and a similar internal/extenal kind of division.

[devlin1]

Despite my usual love of crunchiness, I like this idea a lot. I know it'd certainly be appealing for most of my non-HERO gaming friends (which is, like, nearly all of them...).

Rep for you.

[RDU Neil]

Hmm. It is an interesting idea. It reminds me slightly of the Nature/Demeanor/(Clan/Tribe/Tradition+Essence) aspect of the World of Darkness games; an aspect of the games I like quite a lot. Obviously this is different, but it seems that it provides a similar role in the game, and a similar internal/extenal kind of division.

I only played WoD a little bit... mostly a Changeling campaign for about 8 episodes... but you are right... this does go that direction... though I hadn't made that connection. Good point. There are no original ideas...

[RDU Neil]

Despite my usual love of crunchiness, I like this idea a lot. I know it'd certainly be appealing for most of my non-HERO gaming friends (which is, like, nearly all of them...).

Rep for you.

Thanks... and it doesn't (on purpose) touch the crunchiness of Char/Skill/Power builds. In many ways, I conceived of it as a direct counter-point to the crunchiness of the rest of the character. Really pushing the player to think both mechanically and thematically... not really blurring the line between them, as Disads seem to do.

[Blue]

Simplify? Go back to FUDGE ya Hippie!!!

;)

Actually this is pretty cool. Don't know if I personally would favor it over the traditional method, but I can see its appeal.

[bluegodjanus]

I think I prefer the complexity of disadvantages. I've never taken a disad I didn't want, but I have thought, 'I need another 15 points to balance my character. What interesting disadvantages could I give him?' I think numerous disadvantages provide a level of complexity and thinking about the character that a simple three traits wouldn't give. It is, however, an interesting system you propose, and personal preference aside it looks like it would work out.

[devlin1]

Thanks... and it doesn't (on purpose) touch the crunchiness of Char/Skill/Power builds. In many ways, I conceived of it as a direct counter-point to the crunchiness of the rest of the character. Really pushing the player to think both mechanically and thematically... not really blurring the line between them, as Disads seem to do.
Right. The biggest complaint I hear about Disads from people who are new to HERO is that "You shouldn't be rewarded in points just for doing what you're supposed to do in the first place: make a good character." I get that point of view. At the same time, I appreciate the existing Disad mechanic, but even I frequently have varying degrees of difficulty with it, especially when I feel a character is Disadvantaged enough-- but if I want to keep up with others in the game, points-wise, I'd better come up with thirty more points of Disads.

Your proposed system skirts the Thirty More Points issue entirely by assuming that each player will want to create an interesting character for no reason other than an enjoyable play experience. I'm all for that.

[nexus]

Personal play style aside, it looks workable.

[ghost-angel]

This is an excellent concept...

But, for those that like Numbers in their game and to keep some crunchy I'd say the GM could add stipulations regarding the number you take and the severity.

Like 1 Major PIT and 1 Minor PIT (CvK and "investigates all leads" for example).

and down the line to get some kind of overall balance between players and something to work with.

Because face it, some players need to be dragged into the creation process kicking and screaming.

[RDU Neil]

This is an excellent concept...

But, for those that like Numbers in their game and to keep some crunchy I'd say the GM could add stipulations regarding the number you take and the severity.

Like 1 Major PIT and 1 Minor PIT (CvK and "investigates all leads" for example).

and down the line to get some kind of overall balance between players and something to work with.

Because face it, some players need to be dragged into the creation process kicking and screaming.

Exactly... and there would also be no change that would stop the GM from using the Disad Mechanic "as written" in the same game, if they choose to do so. Completely "backwards compatible" as it were.

I've just found that while I have no problem with the Disads as they are... some players do... and as a GM, I end up using them as "plot and character hooks" much more often than truly disadvantages. More like "challenges" built into the concept of the character... and hopefully no player would put down a disadvantage that they would not enjoy playing out. It avoids the "Gotta find that last 20 points" as well as giving a larger leeway to the GM on interpreting the "challenge" during game play. The fact that their External Factor is a dark past linked to VIPER (to use the hoary cliche) involves Hunteds and Social Lims and whatever works for the current story/plotline... like, having VIPER show up and attack isn't conducive to the story... but having the character have a flashback to their days as an indoctrinated VIPER assassin in the midst of a battle. No argument that "Hey, I don't have that particular psych lim on my sheet!" because all those elements are wrapped up liberally into the "Dark VIPER Past."

Liberal concept allows for liberal interpretation. It's all good! :)

[ghost-angel]

definitely all good...

I'm taking notes here.. gonna see if the GM in my current game likes it as well...

[RDU Neil]

And I just realized that I kinda like the term "Challenge."

Internal Challenge

External Challenge

Complication

Hmmm... less sterile, but not perfect. I'll keep thinking.

[prestidigitator]

I only played WoD a little bit... mostly a Changeling campaign for about 8 episodes... but you are right... this does go that direction... though I hadn't made that connection. Good point. There are no original ideas...
Heh. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't original. I just meant that in some ways it has a similar feel to some WoD mechanisms.

(Your only exposure to WoD was Changeling?! Dude. You gotta play some Vampire or Mage or something. Not that Changeling isn't a good game, but...it just lacks the feel in some ways.)

[CourtFool]

While not really related, this makes me think of a post that suggested no points are given for Disadvantages during character creation, but XP are awarded whenever a Disadvantage comes into play during a session.

This is an interesting idea and certainly leans towards Narativist play. I would be willing to try it, just not with any of the groups I have ever played with before. I mean...is self-serving really a disadvantage?

[devlin1]

Heh. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't original. I just meant that in some ways it has a similar feel to some WoD mechanisms.

(Your only exposure to WoD was Changeling?! Dude. You gotta play some Vampire or Mage or something. Not that Changeling isn't a good game, but...it just lacks the feel in some ways.)
That's interesting, because I would advocate running screaming from Vampire and its descendants. And run with a lot of angst. Wear black. Obfuscate yourself as you go.

YMMV, of course.

[prestidigitator]

While not really related, this makes me think of a post that suggested no points are given for Disadvantages during character creation, but XP are awarded whenever a Disadvantage comes into play during a session.

This is an interesting idea and certainly leans towards Narativist play. I would be willing to try it, just not with any of the groups I have ever played with before. I mean...is self-serving really a disadvantage?
Huh. Yeah, that sounds interesting. I don't know that points during creation are really all that better. The same thing applies, doesn't it?

[prestidigitator]

That's interesting, because I would advocate running screaming from Vampire and its descendants. And run with a lot of angst. Wear black. Obfuscate yourself as you go.

YMMV, of course.
Did I say descendants. Actually, I am stuck at 2nd ed. Vampire, and pretty much refuse to go any further. And as for LARP, don't even think of going there!!! Dem foos gi' us bad names, 'ear?

[WhammeWhamme]

Right. The biggest complaint I hear about Disads from people who are new to HERO is that "You shouldn't be rewarded in points just for doing what you're supposed to do in the first place: make a good character." I get that point of view. At the same time, I appreciate the existing Disad mechanic, but even I frequently have varying degrees of difficulty with it, especially when I feel a character is Disadvantaged enough-- but if I want to keep up with others in the game, points-wise, I'd better come up with thirty more points of Disads.

Your proposed system skirts the Thirty More Points issue entirely by assuming that each player will want to create an interesting character for no reason other than an enjoyable play experience. I'm all for that.

Ehm... is there anything _better_ to give points for than for building a good character?

[Sean Waters]

Excellent concept. Rep.*

I tend to be rather woolly on disads anyway: I chuck in the ones I know that the character should have, measure it up by eye and then either give them a GM bonus or (my favourite) mystery disads: a sort of disadvantages VPP the GM or player.

Astonishing how different my style of play and posting are.... :D

Anyway, the only problem with this approach is that there is obviously scope for abuse. With a group that you are comfortable with and who know your style of play, I'd say this would work out very well, although you might wind up with something just as complicated (if not more so) than the disadvantages in some cases. :)

On the compare and contrast front, WOD is not bad, but if you really want a system that is utterly gorgeous for defining what pushes your buttons, can I suggest you read Unknown Armies. It really is splendid, and full of interesting ideas, some of which can be adapted to HERO. Wouldn't be so good for some of the more esotoric disads, like accidental change and vulnerabilities, but other than that it is sparky.


*Well, rep when I can; stop having good ideas

[Sean Waters]

Ehm... is there anything _better_ to give points for than for building a good character?

Yes: providing munchies for the GM.

Sean 'Graft' Waters

[RDU Neil]

While not really related, this makes me think of a post that suggested no points are given for Disadvantages during character creation, but XP are awarded whenever a Disadvantage comes into play during a session.

This is an interesting idea and certainly leans towards Narativist play. I would be willing to try it, just not with any of the groups I have ever played with before. I mean...is self-serving really a disadvantage?

Actually... this is a good point... because self-serving is a disad... when it disadvantages the character. So... you get EXP when you actually are disadvantaged IN GAME PLAY, rather than for the POTENTIAL to be disadvantaged. Interesting concept... but I dislike games that hand out EXP for arbitrary/subjective things. My style is flat 3 EXP per adventure, as long as you show up... and players are rewarded for role playing by getting the spotlight and being the focus. I've never had people complain "I should get EXP and Fred shouldn't 'cause he didn't really participate!" That isn't what it's about. EXP don't matter if you never engage your character in the game.

I look at EXP as a marker for growth in the character... not as a reward. I'm probably in the minority on this... but it's worked for years this way. (Heck, originally we never handed out EXP. Occassionally, we'd reassess the character an plop in a few skills or up power a bit if it fit what they character had achieved so far... there was no constant EXP growth until I began gaming with the beginnings of my current group (about 13 years ago) and they demanded EXP after every adventure. I was shocked... came up with this 3 per adventure flat... on the fly, and it soothed their need to have developmental control over their characters.)

[RDU Neil]

Heh. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't original. I just meant that in some ways it has a similar feel to some WoD mechanisms.

(Your only exposure to WoD was Changeling?! Dude. You gotta play some Vampire or Mage or something. Not that Changeling isn't a good game, but...it just lacks the feel in some ways.)

I did play a little Vampire 2nd Ed, and Mage. Really liked Mage in concept (what they stole from Ars Magica, basically). We had a game where one guy was a vampire, another a mage (me), and a third a werewolf... caught in some black wurm spell. It was cool for two adventures. We just hated how most WoD players said, "You can't do that. It say, on pg. 784 of the Toreador Handbook that Blah, blah blah must behave blah blah blah and one can do this on thing blah, blah, blah..." It was like you weren't expected to have imagination and tell your own stories... you were supposed to conform to some rules that forced you to buy every book just so it could tell you what to do. BLEH.

The Changeling was fun, actually. It was roughly based on the rules, with a separate world of magic and craziness... didn't follow the WoD canon... mixed freely with other types of magic beings (vampires, werewolves, mages, etc.) and actually had an adventurous feeling of hope and magic... no black clothes or despondent types except for one sluagh who was fixated on becoming a vampire.

[RDU Neil]

Yes: providing munchies for the GM.

Sean 'Graft' Waters


Instead of the GM providing the food? This actually HAPPENS? :nonp:

Wow... that would be cool...

(Actually, players have been getting much better at this... but it has taken YEARS and only a couple donate sporadially. It's not the money... I can handle that... it is the consideration I would just like to see.)

[prestidigitator]

Actually... this is a good point... because self-serving is a disad... when it disadvantages the character. So... you get EXP when you actually are disadvantaged IN GAME PLAY, rather than for the POTENTIAL to be disadvantaged. Interesting concept... but I dislike games that hand out EXP for arbitrary/subjective things. My style is flat 3 EXP per adventure, as long as you show up... and players are rewarded for role playing by getting the spotlight and being the focus. I've never had people complain "I should get EXP and Fred shouldn't 'cause he didn't really participate!" That isn't what it's about. EXP don't matter if you never engage your character in the game.

I look at EXP as a marker for growth in the character... not as a reward. I'm probably in the minority on this... but it's worked for years this way. (Heck, originally we never handed out EXP. Occassionally, we'd reassess the character an plop in a few skills or up power a bit if it fit what they character had achieved so far... there was no constant EXP growth until I began gaming with the beginnings of my current group (about 13 years ago) and they demanded EXP after every adventure. I was shocked... came up with this 3 per adventure flat... on the fly, and it soothed their need to have developmental control over their characters.)
I actually take a mixed approach. I tend to flavor the general amount of experience I give by how quickly I want characters to grow for the campaign, and alter the amount of experience based on the accomplishments, ideas, and good roleplaying I feel the group did as a whole. I give the same amount of experience to all players most of the time. For example, I might say in a campaign in which I want characters to advance pretty quickly, "There was good participation tonight, everyone played their characters well, and there were a couple of really awesome bits of roleplaying. Everyone gets 4 XP."

[prestidigitator]

We just hated how most WoD players said, "You can't do that. It say, on pg. 784 of the Toreador Handbook that Blah, blah blah must behave blah blah blah and one can do this on thing blah, blah, blah..." It was like you weren't expected to have imagination and tell your own stories... you were supposed to conform to some rules that forced you to buy every book just so it could tell you what to do. BLEH.
Agreed. Completely. One of the first things I say in most Chronicles is something like:

I am using the source material out of the main book. I may use some selected bits from other places, but that can be discovered in-game. Forget everything you have learned about the world (and any rules I don't specifically approve) in any Clanbooks, Player's Guides, Modules, or anything else.
EDIT: Oh, and BTW, one of the main gripes I have with 3rd ed. is ALL the source material they threw in. They defined exactly what was happening in every little niche of the world, exactly where the Jyhad/Apocalypse-type storylines were going, etc. IMHO, 2nd ed. was the perfect balance of throwing just enough in to give you something to work with and spark your imagination (while leaving many things beautifully vague and up to interpretation), without railroading you into a particular narrow world setting.

[CourtFool]

Actually... this is a good point... because self-serving is a disad... when it disadvantages the character.

My second paragraph was referring to your concept. Personally, I would feel a little ripped off if I bothered to write in some challenges to my chracter (PIT, PEF and Complications) and someone else basically made their character self-serving and cautious. Maybe self-serving and cautious are bad examples. What I mean is someone who would design their character so they could continue to metagame.

Crunchy Disadvantages certainly does not stop metagaming. I am not implying it does. It does give me, as a GM, a guideline for what to expect from the character. I can also call a player on it. As I said, though, I would certainly be willing to give it a try sans any gamists.

[ghost-angel]

My second paragraph was referring to your concept. Personally, I would feel a little ripped off if I bothered to write in some challenges to my chracter (PIT, PEF and Complications) and someone else basically made their character self-serving and cautious. Maybe self-serving and cautious are bad examples. What I mean is someone who would design their character so they could continue to metagame.

Crunchy Disadvantages certainly does not stop metagaming. I am not implying it does. It does give me, as a GM, a guideline for what to expect from the character. I can also call a player on it. As I said, though, I would certainly be willing to give it a try sans any gamists.

Metagamers will always find a way to Metagame, regardless of any mechanics used.

Same with Powergamers.

Or any other type of Gamer...

[zornwil]

Pretty nice idea, and especially good for points-less games. Not sure if I would adopt this, but it's a worthy thought for some games. For me, for most games, I stay with traditional Disads and like them, but I set the bar for them very low, preferring to just give more points directly and encourage more focused, less points-oriented Disad approaches.

On the point of giving XP, I will build in a mechanic in the Cyber Ninja Pirates in Space game (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30212) to directly award players for Disad exercise in play, partly inspired by Tesuji's comments (that's at least where I first remember hearing that idea), but also by Deadlands which has a similar idea and I think works well, particularly, at least, in genres where you really want players to create color and do so rather "brightly" (as opposed to a more simulation-oriented, "let it come into play as it should" or a more gamist "the GM should create the challenges and the player should react").

However, in general, as to a point above about giving flat XPs and not using them as rewards, I actually do use them as rewards. I always liked them in the old D&D system, so I have created a more formalized XP award method, along with a "dial setting" so you can make it slow to fast growth. I normally use one of the faster settings myself, but added the slower versions so I could use those in other settings (generally, my favorite long-term game is fast XP growth superheroes, but other settings definitely don't make sense with fast XP growth for my tastes).

PS - but meant to add that I also give some XP just for time spent playing, assuming it's "in character" (though I have to admit, I'm so used to players who just do this in general and the issue is such a loaded one anyway that I'd be very hard-pressed to challenge someone and say they don't deserve it - if that were the case, it'd be a more general issue and I'd have to deal with it more as a discussion, not via the gaming mechanics).

[RDU Neil]

My second paragraph was referring to your concept. Personally, I would feel a little ripped off if I bothered to write in some challenges to my chracter (PIT, PEF and Complications) and someone else basically made their character self-serving and cautious. Maybe self-serving and cautious are bad examples. What I mean is someone who would design their character so they could continue to metagame.

Crunchy Disadvantages certainly does not stop metagaming. I am not implying it does. It does give me, as a GM, a guideline for what to expect from the character. I can also call a player on it. As I said, though, I would certainly be willing to give it a try sans any gamists.

This is a good point... and in many ways, this idea for disadvantages also works as a "player style test" in a way. If you have a player who tries to metagame these simplified disads... this is a huge red flag that maybe they don't belong in the game! The point here is that such open ended disads should allow players to really put the stuff the WANT on to the character... so if a player is basically saying, "I don't want my character to have any of that disadvantage stuff..." they are really saying, "I don't want to play in this game."

That's how I'd take it... give 'em a cookie and show 'em the door! :)