Using Supervillain Psych Lims

[moquif]

In the villain write ups (especially mystical bad guys) I often see psych lims like "Irredeamably Evil". So how is that limitating? How can that be used against a character like a "Code of Honor"? Do you have NNDs with the defence being "having a spark of goodness in your soul"? Do you bait traps with puppies hoping your evil target will go out of his/her way to kick it? Do you raid a morgue to bait the cannabil you're trying to capture? If a "Casual Killer" is holding hostages, how is it hazardous to the villain? I was under the impression psych lims are meant to impeed a character but I don't see how that works with evil ones.

[Hermit]

Subject to GM intrepetation, but I would portray irredeemibly evil as meaning, among other things, that the NPC has a real blind spot when it comes to the noblier virtues. Being totally selfish, villain might have trouble realizing concepts like self sacrafice, courage, and never giving up. Any hero exhibiting these traits when in his opinion they should just be giving up or looking out for their lives, are likely to confuse him. If he fails an ego roll, he might even lose a phase of action.

What's more, consistently taking the 'greater evil' option, would also make him rather predictable in the long run.

"Overmaster is preparing to fire the Omniwave. Target will either be Ft. Long, or Wattstown! But which one?"

"Wattstown."

"How do you know?"
"More people.... including more women and children reside there."
"Oh yeah."

[moquif]

That gave me an idea, if a villain expects the worst from people then he can be tricked. The "rebel" heroe can stage an arguement with the team leader when the villain is watching ending with "That's it, I'm quitting! You can fight him without my help!" Then the villain wouldn't suspect the rebel sneaking around from behind for a surprise attack.

[Hermit]

That gave me an idea, if a villain expects the worst from people then he can be tricked. The "rebel" heroe can stage an arguement with the team leader when the villain is watching ending with "That's it, I'm quitting! You can fight him without my help!" Then the villain wouldn't suspect the rebel sneaking around from behind for a surprise attack.

That might indeed work.

[Chuckg]

Subject to GM intrepetation, but I would portray irredeemibly evil as meaning, among other things, that the NPC has a real blind spot when it comes to the noblier virtues. Being totally selfish, villain might have trouble realizing concepts like self sacrafice, courage, and never giving up.

The classic literary example is, natch, Lord of the Rings. Sauron's inability to conceive of a mindset that would *not* grasp the One Ring for its power, but would instead seek to remove it from the world, is the reason he lost at a time where he had everything going for him.


"He supposes that we are all going to Minas Tirith; for that is what he would himself have done in our place. And according to his wisdom it would have been a heavy stroke against his power. Indeed he is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have /no one/ in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream. In which no doubt you will see our good fortune and our hope. For imagining war he has let loose war, believing that he has no time to waste; for he that strikes the first blow, if he strikes it hard enough, may need to strike no more. So forces that he has long been preparing he is now setting in motion, sooner than he intended. Wise fool. For if he had used all his power to guard Mordor, so that none could enter, and bent all his guile to the hunting of the Ring, then indeed hope would have faded; neither the Ring nor bearer could long have eluded him. But now his eye gazes abroad rather than near his home..."

-- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_

[Lord Liaden]

Another way to look at it is that, if the villain is presented with an opportunity to perform a truly evil deed he will be compelled to do so, even if it's not in his best interests. For example, if the villain is in secret ID or working on a covert scheme, he can't resist causing suffering for the sheer joy of it, which may reveal his identity or draw attention to his scheme before he's ready.

[SKJAM!]

Another classic example: the villain is dangling over the Pit of Acid, held up only by the hero's hand. The smart thing to do would be letting the hero pull you to safety, then kill him, but the Irredeemably Evil character will try to kill the hero right then and there.

Also, being Irredeemably Evil will mean that certain "heroes" won't hold back against that villain.

"Casual Killer" can work against the hostage taker in two ways...

1) He casually kills his meat shields when they annoy him, leaving him without hostages.

2) The heroes know that he's a Casual Killer and likely to do the first one no matter how good their negotiator is, so they attack immediately, gambling that they can save more hostages that way.

[SatinKitty]

Some utterly evil villains are also clever. If they know they'll die if the hero doesn't save them, they will promise the moon to save their lives. The promise is, of course, a lie. An utterly evil villain won't hesitate to lie to save their life. The smart villain will let the hero save him THEN kill the hero. Chantal, for example's main weapons were her great beauty and feminine wiles. She could probably play the damsel-in-distress in an Oscar-winning way, only to backstab the hero literally and/or figuratively once she knew she was safe and his guard was down. I think that any hero who trusts a villain he is dangling over a cliff is rather foolish if he believes the villain's promises. Especially since the villain can probably safely assume the hero would never actually drop him anyway.

[Kristopher]

Not sure how this ended up where it did originally, but it belongs here:

At least in my case, I often look at NPC Psych Lims as more of a guide to GMing and playing that character, than as something I have to make sure I hammer with NPC with every so often.

Of course, I usually roll my eyes at the mindset that demands a strict enforcement of Disadvantages on a hard and fast schedule.

"Sorry guys, I know we were left off at a cliffhanger last time we played, and that the space station was about to explode, but since Ultraman's DNPC hasn't come up in 3.25 sessions, we're going to do a flashback today to keep things balanced."

:rolleyes:

[WhammeWhamme]

Not sure how this ended up where it did originally, but it belongs here:

At least in my case, I often look at NPC Psych Lims as more of a guide to GMing and playing that character, than as something I have to make sure I hammer with NPC with every so often.

Of course, I usually roll my eyes at the mindset that demands a strict enforcement of Disadvantages on a hard and fast schedule.

"Sorry guys, I know we were left off at a cliffhanger last time we played, and that the space station was about to explode, but since Ultraman's DNPC hasn't come up in 3.25 sessions, we're going to do a flashback today to keep things balanced."

:rolleyes:

Well, what *I* did with 'roll 'em' disadvantages was roll 'em... and then use them as soon as I could think of a good way of doing it, and started foreshadowing it immediately.

And if I rolled it AGAIN, well, then they got into even deeper trouble in the mean while. :)


Disadvantages should be disadvantageous. That's what they're there for. If you don't believe in using them, don't require them. If you don't like them coming up at the STATED frequency, have the players buy them at lower frequencies ("I know blindness is 'all the time', but I'm going to forget about it 9 sessions out of 10 and treat you like anyone else, so just take it at the uncommon level").

The player (or someone) went to the effort of thinking of downsides to the character. They should not be ignored. (Same goes for obscure powers and skills, incidently).

[Kristopher]

Well, what *I* did with 'roll 'em' disadvantages was roll 'em... and then use them as soon as I could think of a good way of doing it, and started foreshadowing it immediately.

And if I rolled it AGAIN, well, then they got into even deeper trouble in the mean while. :)


Disadvantages should be disadvantageous. That's what they're there for. If you don't believe in using them, don't require them. If you don't like them coming up at the STATED frequency, have the players buy them at lower frequencies ("I know blindness is 'all the time', but I'm going to forget about it 9 sessions out of 10 and treat you like anyone else, so just take it at the uncommon level").

The player (or someone) went to the effort of thinking of downsides to the character. They should not be ignored. (Same goes for obscure powers and skills, incidently).

Blindness isn't an issue, because it is all the time, and it really is an absurd counter-example.

Re-read the semi-ficticious quote in my post again, and think about it: you know you've seen people say things like "An 11- Disad that doesn't hinder the character at least once every other session isn't being enforced sufficiently." :rolleyes:

Yes, disadvantages should be disadvantageous, but really, as a GM, I don't think I need dice to tell me how or when to use them.

The very idea of rolling for Disads every game session strikes me as a very Gygaxian, D&D thing to do, along the lines of having a pair of charts in the back of the DM's Guide for coming up with what kind of prostitute the party might run into tonight...

I'm not making that up, by the way.

[Badger]

Sadly, he isnt making that up about D&D. :(

[WhammeWhamme]

Blindness isn't an issue, because it is all the time, and it really is an absurd counter-example.

Re-read the semi-ficticious quote in my post again, and think about it: you know you've seen people say things like "An 11- Disad that doesn't hinder the character at least once every other session isn't being enforced sufficiently." :rolleyes:

Yes, disadvantages should be disadvantageous, but really, as a GM, I don't think I need dice to tell me how or when to use them.

The very idea of rolling for Disads every game session strikes me as a very Gygaxian, D&D thing to do, along the lines of having a pair of charts in the back of the DM's Guide for coming up with what kind of prostitute the party might run into tonight...

I'm not making that up, by the way.

Well, an 11- disadvantage is, by definition, one that should come up every second session. That's what the 11- MEANS in the rules.

If a player takes a DNPC on an 11-, they have essentially filed a written request to have that NPC show up every second session. Disregarding that doesn't seem like a good thing to do. (And if players aren't taking disadvantages because they want to but because they have to, perhaps you should not be mandating them).

If there are rules for something, then using them is something that should be considered seriously, because rules in a good game are created by a group of people with more collective experience than any individual GM.

It does not make your game poorer to have to think of ways to work particular NPC's into the upcoming plot. Quite the contrary, the extra layer of complication and thought adds to it, and helps muddy the issue.


And the Blindness is not an absurd counterexample. They will *be blind* all the time. But someone with allergies (for example) always has the allergies, they just don't _affect them_ all the time.

If most of the time you'll just handwave and say "someone describes the visual elements of the scene to you, so don't worry", they are not being limited "all the time".


If you wish to lower the frequencies, fine... but if a player is expecting to constantly have to deal with something, because that's what the rules say should happen... maybe you should tell them and adjust the numbers on the character sheet to an appropriate level.

The point of rules is so that people can know what to expect. If you throw that away, the rules are a waste of time.

[WhammeWhamme]

Sadly, he isnt making that up about D&D. :(

Hey, random prostitute charts can convey the dangers of lecherous behaviour like nothing else... nothing says "don't" like having the chance of your character's winky becoming destined to shrink and drop off being determined only by the cruel, cruel dice...

:)

(Gygaxian GMing DOES give a certain feel. And I think the 'good' feel it can give is the one where you are not guaranteed to survive, you are actually going to have to work for it, no really, you might lose, it REALLY CAN happen. That strikes me as possibly being good)

[moquif]

Some utterly evil villains are also clever. If they know they'll die if the hero doesn't save them, they will promise the moon to save their lives. The promise is, of course, a lie. An utterly evil villain won't hesitate to lie to save their life. The smart villain will let the hero save him THEN kill the hero. Chantal, for example's main weapons were her great beauty and feminine wiles. She could probably play the damsel-in-distress in an Oscar-winning way, only to backstab the hero literally and/or figuratively once she knew she was safe and his guard was down. I think that any hero who trusts a villain he is dangling over a cliff is rather foolish if he believes the villain's promises. Especially since the villain can probably safely assume the hero would never actually drop him anyway.

I think that issue was address in the old "Things I would do if I was an Evil Overlord". The idea was the villian WOULD spare the hero if the hero saved his life. Not out of any higher ideal, simply because it encouraged similar behavior in case the Evil Overlord was ever in danger of imminent death again. Plus occasionally keeping your word keeps those do-gooders guessing.

But your right, being totally evil and the hero knowing you're totally evil is a disadvantage then. Heroes are smart too, if they know the villian would attack the hero the second the villian was safe, then the hero is more likely set up a video camera and a lawn chair then help. I'd say you not only need a total "Code vs Killing" but a similar disad to intentionally rescue someone you know is so evil. Unless you have an alternate reason for saving the villain like he has information you need or you want to bring him to justice.

[Kristopher]

Well, an 11- disadvantage is, by definition, one that should come up every second session. That's what the 11- MEANS in the rules.

If a player takes a DNPC on an 11-, they have essentially filed a written request to have that NPC show up every second session. Disregarding that doesn't seem like a good thing to do. (And if players aren't taking disadvantages because they want to but because they have to, perhaps you should not be mandating them).

If there are rules for something, then using them is something that should be considered seriously, because rules in a good game are created by a group of people with more collective experience than any individual GM.

It does not make your game poorer to have to think of ways to work particular NPC's into the upcoming plot. Quite the contrary, the extra layer of complication and thought adds to it, and helps muddy the issue.


And the Blindness is not an absurd counterexample. They will *be blind* all the time. But someone with allergies (for example) always has the allergies, they just don't _affect them_ all the time.

If most of the time you'll just handwave and say "someone describes the visual elements of the scene to you, so don't worry", they are not being limited "all the time".


If you wish to lower the frequencies, fine... but if a player is expecting to constantly have to deal with something, because that's what the rules say should happen... maybe you should tell them and adjust the numbers on the character sheet to an appropriate level.

The point of rules is so that people can know what to expect. If you throw that away, the rules are a waste of time.


IMO, Disads are there to tell me something about the character as much as anything. They're a GMing resourse, not a collection of handcuffs and straightjackets.

If every PC has an 11- DNPC, which is entirely possible in many campaignes, and I run by the strict definition you propose, then the only thing that goes on in the game will be a continuous stream of imperilled or otherwise "disadvantaging" DNPCs.

If it were up to me, I'd entirely eliminate the rolls from Disads like DNPC, just to deprive this Gygaxian accountant-style gaming theory of the support that the rolls give it.


As for the blindness, I've had to handle that before, just not in HERO. Like any other Disad/Flaw/whatever, I didn't treat it as something I have to make the player pay for, I treat it as a fact that needs to be kept in mind and as an opportunity for good roleplaying and story. It's a problem because it's a problem, not because I go out of my way to make sure the "debt" is called in.

In other words, roleplaying, not roll-playing.

[Korvar]

The good thing about rolling Disads, as a GM, is it gives you combinations and permutations that you might not have thought of on your own. I do like that.

[WhammeWhamme]

IMO, Disads are there to tell me something about the character as much as anything. They're a GMing resourse, not a collection of handcuffs and straightjackets.

If every PC has an 11- DNPC, which is entirely possible in many campaignes, and I run by the strict definition you propose, then the only thing that goes on in the game will be a continuous stream of imperilled or otherwise "disadvantaging" DNPCs.

And the problem THERE is that everyone took DNPC at too high a level.

Or just bad GMing; it's quite easy to work a DNPC into another encounter (or several en masse; massive hostage situation anyone?)

I repeat, DNPC 11- says that the player is expecting them to show up every second session. If they don't realize that, tell them that and adjust it.

If they DO want that, maybe you should actually pay attention to their desires for the game, hmmm?

Or would that interfere with YOUR story? (I feel justified in continuing the name calling in an attempt to make you realize you're being childish)



If it were up to me, I'd entirely eliminate the rolls from Disads like DNPC, just to deprive this Gygaxian accountant-style gaming theory of the support that the rolls give it.


As for the blindness, I've had to handle that before, just not in HERO. Like any other Disad/Flaw/whatever, I didn't treat it as something I have to make the player pay for, I treat it as a fact that needs to be kept in mind and as an opportunity for good roleplaying and story. It's a problem because it's a problem, not because I go out of my way to make sure the "debt" is called in.

In other words, roleplaying, not roll-playing.

In other words, you hate having rules that make it possible for mere players to decide what's going to happen?

If you hate the game so much, why don't you quit and go write a novel?

Gee, that's fun, I can see why you did it.

[Kristopher]

And the problem THERE is that everyone took DNPC at too high a level.

Or that the vehemently-supported view of Disads I see on these forums, that treats them as something that must be paid, paid, paid for, gets old fast if you're not interested in punishing your players and their characters.


Or just bad GMing; it's quite easy to work a DNPC into another encounter (or several en masse; massive hostage situation anyone?)

As you point out below, this is just silly name-calling on your part.


I repeat, DNPC 11- says that the player is expecting them to show up every second session. If they don't realize that, tell them that and adjust it.

Well, I guess that's what it says to you.


If they DO want that, maybe you should actually pay attention to their desires for the game, hmmm?

That's quite the leap. You seem determined either to see this in the worst way possible, or to start an argument, or both. Or maybe you're just reacting badly to someone questioning the long-assumed view of Disads. I really can't tell at this point.


Or would that interfere with YOUR story? (I feel justified in continuing the name calling in an attempt to make you realize you're being childish)

Yes, you can continue to engage in name-calling while I continue to try to address the topic of discussion. Have fun with that.


In other words, you hate having rules that make it possible for mere players to decide what's going to happen?

That's...a very interesting way to caricature what I said. Not at all accurate, or productive. But still, very interesting.

What I dislike is rules getting in the way of roleplaying, and a good story, and -- since it seems you assume otherwise -- everyone involved enjoying the game. That's important too.


If you hate the game so much, why don't you quit and go write a novel?

Gee, that's fun, I can see why you did it.

What on earth gives you the idea that I ever "quit the game"? What are you talking about?

BTW, I think I figured out the answer to the question in your signature.

[Manic Typist]

Guys, let's take a step back for a second. I think that some people are coming off as more confrontational than they intend, because they felt that somehow they or what they stood for was being criticized.

This thread is just to compare different conceptions of Disads and ideas on how to use them.

Now, in the campaigns I have been in, I have never even SEEN a roll on a Disad, even hunted. We've just listed points value. The GM just incorporates the Disad whenever he feels like giving the player something fun for "their" character (which could easily spill over onto the other characters, muwahaha) or to help tie into the main plot.

[Kristopher]

Guys, let's take a step back for a second. I think that some people are coming off as more confrontational than they intend, because they felt that somehow they or what they stood for was being criticized.

This thread is just to compare different conceptions of Disads and ideas on how to use them.

Now, in the campaigns I have been in, I have never even SEEN a roll on a Disad, even hunted. We've just listed points value. The GM just incorporates the Disad whenever he feels like giving the player something fun for "their" character (which could easily spill over onto the other characters, muwahaha) or to help tie into the main plot.

And that's pretty much what I do, more or less.

That's what all three GMs I've played with in games using HERO have done, as well.

What boggles my mind is the constant undertone on these forums that such an approach doesn't "make the players pay for their points" or "isn't balanced'.

[WhammeWhamme]

Or that the vehemently-supported view of Disads I see on these forums, that treats them as something that must be paid, paid, paid for, gets old fast if you're not interested in punishing your players and their characters.

Nonsense. It is not punishing the players. Players should take the disadvantages they _want_ to come up and deal with. At that point, it is rewarding them with attention and spotlight and showing that you give a damn about _that character_ in particular.

Best game of Champions I ever ran boiled down to 'exploiting' a disadvantage.



As you point out below, this is just silly name-calling on your part.

No, it's an accurate observation. Whether you're a bad GM is indeterminate, but it's certainly a possible explanation for the 'problem'.



Well, I guess that's what it says to you.


11- means 'roll every session, 55% chance of needing to incorporate it. That is the RULES. Likewise, 11- skill roll means 55% chance of success, STR 10 means a maximum lift of 100kg, and Vulnerability: x2 Stun from Cold Iron means Cold Iron does twice as much STUN to you...

That's what it actually does mean in the context of Hero. If you change it, you are house ruling, which does not make you correct, because in the context of the ACTUAL game, it means precisely what I said.



That's quite the leap. You seem determined either to see this in the worst way possible, or to start an argument, or both. Or maybe you're just reacting badly to someone questioning the long-assumed view of Disads. I really can't tell at this point.

No, it is not a leap.

If a player took DNPC 11- intending that disadvantage work AS WRITTEN IN THE RULEBOOK, then they are intending for the DNPC to show up every second session. Players do make mistakes in this regard, but they can also sometimes want things to work like they do in the rulebook, which is hardly an unreasonable assumption.

I take vulnerability, I should take double damage from X. I take susceptability, I should take damage from Y. I take energy blast, I can cause damage at range. Things should work as written unless clearly specified not to, or in case of GM fiat (which should not be taken as grounds to stomp on a character concept; if you have an issue with a concept stomp on it out of game).

And if a player wants passionately for their DNPC to show up every second session, and it is a vital part of their character concept that they need to rescue them all the time... you should ABSOLUTELY try and work that into the game.



Yes, you can continue to engage in name-calling while I continue to try to address the topic of discussion. Have fun with that.

The guy who started off with "Gygaxian" and other terms of endearment has NO moral high ground.



That's...a very interesting way to caricature what I said. Not at all accurate, or productive. But still, very interesting.

What I dislike is rules getting in the way of roleplaying, and a good story, and -- since it seems you assume otherwise -- everyone involved enjoying the game. That's important too.

Rules can't get in the way of roleplaying and a good story and people enjoying themselves. Only the actions of a human being can interfere with that. If they're stopping someone from having fun, it's because someone is making them unfun.

To misquote gun rights activists: Rules don't kill fun. People kill fun.

Incidently: When you call my claim that you should apply the rules as written as being 'bad for roleplaying', 'unfun', or use the term Gygaxian, you caricature MY position.

I decided to reply in kind and see how you'd deal. The answer? You ranted and raved and generally completely missed the fact that you did the exact same thing.

I'll be generous: I apologize for being insulting, constructing a straw man out of pieces of your position, and being condescending.

NOW can we have a civilized debate where you consider the possibility that you could be wrong?



What on earth gives you the idea that I ever "quit the game"? What are you talking about?

BTW, I think I figured out the answer to the question in your signature.


I'm saying, if you don't like actually using the rules, maybe you should stop. I'm not saying you have, I'm saying you might be happier playing a game with no nasty rules that might actually provide structure and make it easier to have fun!

[WhammeWhamme]

Guys, let's take a step back for a second. I think that some people are coming off as more confrontational than they intend, because they felt that somehow they or what they stood for was being criticized.

This thread is just to compare different conceptions of Disads and ideas on how to use them.

Now, in the campaigns I have been in, I have never even SEEN a roll on a Disad, even hunted. We've just listed points value. The GM just incorporates the Disad whenever he feels like giving the player something fun for "their" character (which could easily spill over onto the other characters, muwahaha) or to help tie into the main plot.


My play style was compared to D&D. Not even 3.5, but the bad old days of killer DMing.

That IS a criticism. That is an insult.

A Killer DM does NOT care about the rules. Bad DM's will cheat happily to get their desired result.

A GOOD GM? Might value being fair and impartial. This is where actually caring about following the rules comes in, rather than using them as justification to do whatever the hell you feel.

[WhammeWhamme]

And that's pretty much what I do, more or less.

That's what all three GMs I've played with in games using HERO have done, as well.

What boggles my mind is the constant undertone on these forums that such an approach doesn't "make the players pay for their points" or "isn't balanced'.

Did I say a thing about balanced or "pay for their points"?

No... I said you should actually follow the rules. Or if you're going to ignore them, admit that. After all, sitting around in a group telling stories completely systemless is a fine pastime. It just isn't (say) Hero.

You claim that rolling for Hunteds is BAD PLAY?

I'm tempted to spend a few paragraphs swearing at you for that.

Disadvantages give the player the right to demand that the GM actually interact with their ideas for their character. They let them introduce their own NPC's, determine what kinds of situations ought to occur, and more.

"I am hunted by the freakin' HAND. I should be killing Ninjae every second session. I WANT to kill Ninjae every second session. If you don't want to have me do that, you should have disallowed the disadvantage. I would have come up with something else cool. But noooooo, you would rather ignore my ideas!"

[KA.]

Kristopher,
I realize that this discussion has become a bit heated, so please don't take this as an attack, but I do have some questions about your position.

If you think that using Disadvantages at the listed frequency interferes with a good storyline, why not just allow for more base points and let your players take the Disadvantages at lower levels?

I understand the concept that you use them more for 'flavor' in your campaign, and you have every right in the world to do that, but it does make for Players who may well rankle if they end up gaming with a GM who does enforce the rules in a more orthodox way.

It isn't a 'moral' issue of 'right and wrong', it is just an issue of letting your players know what is 'standard' and what is 'the way you do things in your campaign'.

Let me bring in an example from another arena.

I am currently taking classes at a community college.

Since most of my classes are in one particular field (automotive) and the program is rather small, most of my classes are taught by the same professor.
He is also the person who runs the program, so he has a great deal of latitude in what he does, at least as far as the automotive classes.
Because what we are learning is a trade skill, it is far more important for us to actually know how to fix things, than to memorize every possible name for the same part, etc.
And, since we tend to do a lot of work in the shop, repairing problems related to the area we are studying (Brakes, Air Conditioning, etc.) it is not really vital to show up for every single class, because the odds are that if you don't get to work on something today, you will get to next week.
However, he still holds us to the exact same attendance rules, grading policies, etc, as the rest of the college.
Why?
Because if he let us miss 10 classes in a semester (3 is the standard), then it is quite likely that at least some students would feel they were being treated unfairly when their English or History or Math teacher flunked them for doing the same thing.

In the past he actually tried spelling out to the students that there were different attendance policies in the Automotive classes vs. the General Education classes, but there were always misunderstandings.

Now this is a more formal situation than gaming with a group of friends, but the same concept holds true.

If there were no easy way to deal with this, I could see the need for hand-waving, but there is.

If you have your players take Disadvantages at lower levels, the levels that you want and intend to enforce, and give them more base points, at least they will have a realistic idea of how Disadvantages are enforced in a standard campaign.

Otherwise, you are setting them up to see a GM who is playing according to the rules as 'grossly unfair'.

It isn't a question of right or wrong, or even your rights as a GM.

You have every right to modify your campaign as you see fit.

But if you are telling your players that your way is the standard way, when it isn't, then you are misinforming them.

I am not supporting the idea that every session is controlled solely by the random action of the Disadvantage dice, but I do support the idea that Disadvantages should be enforced at the level they are purchased.

Which means that if Spider-Man is on the Space Shuttle for a couple of weeks, one of the following things should happen:
a) Mary Jane and Aunt May stowed away on the shuttle.
(A bit forced, I agree, but that sort of thing happens in comics all the time.)

b) The shuttle is going to crash near New York, and Spider-Man realizes it is going to land pretty darn near to the Spa that MJ and Aunt May are visiting, which means that they will be consumed in a fiery holocaust if he doesn't save the day.

c) The Supervillain who hijacked the Shuttle has gathered a group of hostages in his secret base, and that is where the shuttle is going to crash land because the retro rockets are malfunctioning. With the bad luck that only DNPC's can have, MJ and Aunt May are among the hostages.

d) An old enemy has chosen the time of Spider-Man's absence to strike, and MJ and Aunt May are reported missing, while he is far above the Earth and helpless to rescue them.

e) Spider-Man is going to return to Earth to find a heap of DNPC trouble waiting for him.

And, if you don't want things like that to happen in your campaign, then tell Spider-Man's player to take them at an "8 or less", or perhaps collectively as a group at "8 or less" so they don't show up very often and it is easy to work them in.

I think there is a compromise path between saying:
"Even though you are in an undersea kingdom created by the Elder Gods, and the only way to get here was by using the Conch Shell of Cthulhu, which was destroyed in the process, Joey, your wheelchair-bound newsboy DNPC shows up."
and saying:
"Take all the Disadvantages you want.
Those are just free points and background for your character.
The exact same plots are going to run whether you take them or not."

And this applies to GM characters as well as Player characters.
If I want to just give them points, I call it a “Villain Bonus”.
I don’t load them up with bogus Disadvantages that I never intend to enforce.

As to the original thread topic:
One classic example of a costly Villain Disadvantage can be seen in “The Running Man”.
All through the film, Killian, the Evil Game Show host, acts like a total jerk.
He especially seems to enjoy insulting and humiliating his employees, including his personal bodyguard.
At the end of the film, the bodyguard takes a look at the bloody, buff, and very annoyed, Arnold Schwarzenegger and decides that taking a pounding for his boss is not really worth it.

That is one of the side-effects of ‘evil’ Disadvantages. The hired help may slavishly follow you as long as you are in a position of power, because they fear you. But if it ever looks like you might lose, or aren’t in a position to kill them right now, they will either abandon you, or turn on you like snakes, because they don’t like you at all.

KA.

[Manic Typist]

Ok, a few things.

First, I would just like to remind everyone (not that they need it, but just to be sure) that when you start throwing out phrases like "bad roleplaying" and "bad GMing" or "good way" or "right" or "wrong," these words have different meanings to different people. So, when you are advocating something that is "good," it MIGHT not be the same thing another thinks of as good. Also, when you tell someone they do something in a "bad" way, you might have meant it in a very minor way, but their perception of what is "bad" might lead to it being taken in a very BIG way.

Whamme- Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that HERO was actually a framework, not an actual game per se. It provides a plethora of rules to create a system, but ultimately, what rules are actually taken are up to the GM. Thus, again, if this is true, then the GM won't be breaking the rules by not enforcing something in a certain way if he never adopted that particular suggestion from the beautiful FRED, and instead institutes his own style. Yes?

KA- I don't think Kristopher is saying that the players will be hit with the same scenarios regardless of the PCs' disads. I think he is saying that he doesn't not feel that the Disad should reign above the flow of the game or the players'/GM's will. That is, you don't stop a major, tense story arc in which the characters are really gelling with the story to enforce a roll.

That said, the way I use Disads are:
A) Fun rewards, even if they aren't in the PC's favor. It's always fun to roleplay Disads.
B) Plot hooks. Not quite sure how to get the PCs to take the hint, progress along the arc? Are they lost or not getting it, or not suitably motivated? Have your arch villain's flunkies kidnap a DNPC. Then they give up their boss under interrogation.

I would not, however, EVER allow a Disad to actually REMOVE characters from the story arc. Because that goes against the very foundation of the game. This isn't to say I wouldn't throw them a red herring, but a Disad can never be allowed to actually DISRUPT the progression of the game. It is meant to enhance and enrich the playing experience, while facilitating everyone's progression.

[Kristopher]

KA- I don't think Kristopher is saying that the players will be hit with the same scenarios regardless of the PCs' disads. I think he is saying that he doesn't not feel that the Disad should reign above the flow of the game or the players'/GM's will. That is, you don't stop a major, tense story arc in which the characters are really gelling with the story to enforce a roll.

Pretty much, yeah.


I've seen plenty of posts over the last two and a half years that seem to be saying one or both of the following:

A) Roll every session. If the roll says the DNPC or Hunted comes up, then it comes up, no exception.

(And that, by the way, is where the adjective "Gygaxian" comes in. Maybe "Rollmasterian" would have been better. Whatever would sum up the approach to gaming that makes almost the entire course of things depend on ramdom rolls, down to having charts in the back of the book for determing what kind of prostitute the PCs run into. Roll-playing instead of roleplaying.)

B) If it isn't being "enforced" in a percentage of sessions equivalent to its roll, then the player is "getting away with something", "the game is unbalanced", or whatever. Some of the most vocal advocates of the "balance" position are the same people who obsess endlessly about the cost of certain Characteristics.


Disadvantages like DNPC are plot hooks, IMO, not something that has to be enforced. I'm more concerned that everyone is enjoying themselves and that there's a decent story and that characters stay in character than with establishing perfect balance or enforcing things.

And really, when it comes to Disads that apply all the time (certain Phys Lims, etc), or always apply in certain situations (Vulnerability, etc), then the players should be taking those into account on their own, without me looking over their shoulders. That's how I handle it with my PCs -- I "enforce" them on myself. Of course, I don't see it that way...I see it as part of playing the character.

If someone takes a DNPC or Hunted in a game I run, then it will come up. It just doesn't come up at the whim of the dice or the percentages. It comes up when it makes sense for it to come up. Rarely, occasionally, or often, depending on what level they took it at.

I'm probably opening up another can of worms here, but if a player insisted on their 14- DNPC* actually showing up that much to actually inconvenience them (and the party), I might worry that they expected a bit more than their fair share of the "spotlight".

* What % is that?

What might be another disconnect here is what exactly it means for a DNPC to "show up". Does a PC's spouse calling and asking them to pick up something on the way home from the store count as an appearance?

[Kristopher]

As to the original thread topic:
One classic example of a costly Villain Disadvantage can be seen in “The Running Man”.
All through the film, Killian, the Evil Game Show host, acts like a total jerk.
He especially seems to enjoy insulting and humiliating his employees, including his personal bodyguard.
At the end of the film, the bodyguard takes a look at the bloody, buff, and very annoyed, Arnold Schwarzenegger and decides that taking a pounding for his boss is not really worth it.

"I gotta go score some roids."

Good example.

[Kristopher]

From pages 211 and 212 of FRED (shortened, but anyone can look up the full text):


"Many Disadvantages are weighted in terms of how often they occur...For ease of reference, and to help those GMs who are more comfortable with hand-and-fast rules, these frequences are often assigned numbers indicating how often the Disadvantage arises (...). However, the GM should feel free to ignore these guidelines if he prefers. Rather than rolling at the start of every game session to, for example, find out of a character's Hunted shows up, keep the Disadvantage in mind as a potential plot element... Instead of having a Hunted show up unexpectedly to interupt a carefully planned scenario, construct a scenario in which the Hunted features as the main antagonist."

[WhammeWhamme]

Pretty much, yeah.


I've seen plenty of posts over the last two and a half years that seem to be saying one or both of the following:

A) Roll every session. If the roll says the DNPC or Hunted comes up, then it comes up, no exception.

(And that, by the way, is where the adjective "Gygaxian" comes in. Maybe "Rollmasterian" would have been better. Whatever would sum up the approach to gaming that makes almost the entire course of things depend on ramdom rolls, down to having charts in the back of the book for determing what kind of prostitute the PCs run into. Roll-playing instead of roleplaying.)

Why does this interfere with roleplaying? Having to weave an extra element in can, in the hands of someone doing it well, make for a more interesting story. One piece of advice I loved for writing was something like this "Limits make it easier to be creative; when you have the whole world to choose from it is hard to focus on something small enough to be interesting".

Working in failures at dramatic moments where the narrative flow should surely have you succeed can turn a good story into an excellent one; Artoo plugging himself into a wall socket by mistake, for example, is an EXCELLENT moment that could have been 'dictated by the dice'.

"Roll-playing" is when you don't bother to roleplay. Frankly, anyone who has read bad fiction can see that this can easily happen without any dice at all.



B) If it isn't being "enforced" in a percentage of sessions equivalent to its roll, then the player is "getting away with something", "the game is unbalanced", or whatever. Some of the most vocal advocates of the "balance" position are the same people who obsess endlessly about the cost of certain Characteristics.

If the character is not being inconvenienced the number of times specified on the sheet, the sheet does not accurately represent the character you are playing.

This goes for other things, too; if you always get to succeed at certain rolls because the GM fudges them, you effectively have higher rolls. If you never get ganked for tonnes of BODY despite no resistance defenses, you effectively DO have some defenses. Etcetera.

Fiat should be reserved for when it is necessary, not used willy nilly. It cheapens the PC's successes.



Disadvantages like DNPC are plot hooks, IMO, not something that has to be enforced. I'm more concerned that everyone is enjoying themselves and that there's a decent story and that characters stay in character than with establishing perfect balance or enforcing things.

Then why not play a system that's more rules lite?



And really, when it comes to Disads that apply all the time (certain Phys Lims, etc), or always apply in certain situations (Vulnerability, etc), then the players should be taking those into account on their own, without me looking over their shoulders. That's how I handle it with my PCs -- I "enforce" them on myself. Of course, I don't see it that way...I see it as part of playing the character.

If someone takes a DNPC or Hunted in a game I run, then it will come up. It just doesn't come up at the whim of the dice or the percentages. It comes up when it makes sense for it to come up. Rarely, occasionally, or often, depending on what level they took it at.

I'm probably opening up another can of worms here, but if a player insisted on their 14- DNPC* actually showing up that much to actually inconvenience them (and the party), I might worry that they expected a bit more than their fair share of the "spotlight".

* What % is that?

Players should absolutely take charge of making sure their disadvantages come up. That includes DNPC's and Hunteds... they should make sure that you include them at the frequency they wanted them.

14- is, iirc eighty-X%. And a 14- DNPC is effectively an annoying sidekick who is a part of the party and is always there, botching things up a little. (And a player can reasonably expect some spotlight every game... the DNPC doesn't have to be the FOCUS of the session).

Now, if you don't want an annoying sidekick, don't let them take one.



What might be another disconnect here is what exactly it means for a DNPC to "show up". Does a PC's spouse calling and asking them to pick up something on the way home from the store count as an appearance?

It can, if the pick up is a challenge. Not necessarily a huge thing; having to guard the eggs and milk throughout a supervillain fight should be enough. :)

Of course, the 'how much' is definately a GM call.

[WhammeWhamme]

Ok, a few things.

First, I would just like to remind everyone (not that they need it, but just to be sure) that when you start throwing out phrases like "bad roleplaying" and "bad GMing" or "good way" or "right" or "wrong," these words have different meanings to different people. So, when you are advocating something that is "good," it MIGHT not be the same thing another thinks of as good. Also, when you tell someone they do something in a "bad" way, you might have meant it in a very minor way, but their perception of what is "bad" might lead to it being taken in a very BIG way.

Whamme- Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that HERO was actually a framework, not an actual game per se. It provides a plethora of rules to create a system, but ultimately, what rules are actually taken are up to the GM. Thus, again, if this is true, then the GM won't be breaking the rules by not enforcing something in a certain way if he never adopted that particular suggestion from the beautiful FRED, and instead institutes his own style. Yes?


If the GM does not say otherwise, you have to assume there are no house rules and that the rules not specifically listed as optional are in effect.

DNPC is core. It _can_ be house ruled away, but it is poor form to not tell the players about alterations to the rules that will affect their characters.



KA- I don't think Kristopher is saying that the players will be hit with the same scenarios regardless of the PCs' disads. I think he is saying that he doesn't not feel that the Disad should reign above the flow of the game or the players'/GM's will. That is, you don't stop a major, tense story arc in which the characters are really gelling with the story to enforce a roll.

That said, the way I use Disads are:
A) Fun rewards, even if they aren't in the PC's favor. It's always fun to roleplay Disads.
B) Plot hooks. Not quite sure how to get the PCs to take the hint, progress along the arc? Are they lost or not getting it, or not suitably motivated? Have your arch villain's flunkies kidnap a DNPC. Then they give up their boss under interrogation.

I would not, however, EVER allow a Disad to actually REMOVE characters from the story arc. Because that goes against the very foundation of the game. This isn't to say I wouldn't throw them a red herring, but a Disad can never be allowed to actually DISRUPT the progression of the game. It is meant to enhance and enrich the playing experience, while facilitating everyone's progression.

Well... disrupt, yes. Derail, no. I think that's just a matter of definition... things slowing down while you deal with a problem is _good_ for drama and suchlike.

[Kristopher]

Since people are claiming that not rolling for Disads and not bringing them up a precentage of the time equivalent to their roll is "not playing by the rules", and since it appears to have been missed the first time I posted it...From pages 211 and 212 of FRED (shortened, but anyone can look up the full text):


"Many Disadvantages are weighted in terms of how often they occur...For ease of reference, and to help those GMs who are more comfortable with hand-and-fast rules, these frequences are often assigned numbers indicating how often the Disadvantage arises (...). However, the GM should feel free to ignore these guidelines if he prefers. Rather than rolling at the start of every game session to, for example, find out of a character's Hunted shows up, keep the Disadvantage in mind as a potential plot element... Instead of having a Hunted show up unexpectedly to interupt a carefully planned scenario, construct a scenario in which the Hunted features as the main antagonist."

In other words, using Disads the way I use them and all three HERO GMs I've played with have used them is not "ignoring the rules" -- it's doing exactly what is suggested in the rules as written.

[Manic Typist]

Well... disrupt, yes. Derail, no. I think that's just a matter of definition... things slowing down while you deal with a problem is _good_ for drama and suchlike.

Disrupt, no. To me. But remember, different conceptions. Disrupt is not SLOWING things down. It is somehow interfering with the grain of the game in what I would consider a negative manner. Something that breaks the mood.

[DangerousDan]

Pretty much, yeah.
Disadvantages like DNPC are plot hooks, IMO, not something that has to be enforced. I'm more concerned that everyone is enjoying themselves and that there's a decent story and that characters stay in character than with establishing perfect balance or enforcing things.


The big black book agrees with you. On p. 340 of the FRED, it says, "Disadvantages are storytelling tools -- nothing more, and nothing less. than handles built onto a character to help the GM work him into the story he wants to tell." This gives the GM the explicit permission to use the characters disadvantages as he sees fit. If the GM chooses to ignore the 8-, 11-, 14- rolls for DNPC or Hunted appearance and only involve DNPCs or hunteds whenever it suits his story, then they only show up when it is convenient for the GM.



And really, when it comes to Disads that apply all the time (certain Phys Lims, etc), or always apply in certain situations (Vulnerability, etc), then the players should be taking those into account on their own, without me looking over their shoulders. That's how I handle it with my PCs -- I "enforce" them on myself. Of course, I don't see it that way...I see it as part of playing the character.

If someone takes a DNPC or Hunted in a game I run, then it will come up. It just doesn't come up at the whim of the dice or the percentages. It comes up when it makes sense for it to come up. Rarely, occasionally, or often, depending on what level they took it at.

I'm probably opening up another can of worms here, but if a player insisted on their 14- DNPC* actually showing up that much to actually inconvenience them (and the party), I might worry that they expected a bit more than their fair share of the "spotlight".

* What % is that?

What might be another disconnect here is what exactly it means for a DNPC to "show up". Does a PC's spouse calling and asking them to pick up something on the way home from the store count as an appearance?

It certainly does if the GM chooses to count it that way. The rules of the game give the GM explicit permission to ignore or change them. On p. 343, the FRED says, "DON'T LET THE RULES GET IN THE WAY OF HAVING FUN" (emphasis theirs).

Apparently some people can only have fun if the rules are rigidly followed and every dice roll is made and none is ever arbitrarily waived by the GM. Others prefer a looser style where the GM follows the game rules where they support the story and ignores or violates them where it doesn't. Both styles of play are explicitly permitted by the rulebook. Neither one is more correct than the other.

If some players in a game strongly prefer strict interpretation of the rules with no exceptions to the rules and other players in the same game prefer a fluid interpretation with exceptions that make sense in terms of the story line, there is likely to be conflict, not merely between characters, but between players as well.

[DangerousDan]

Disadvantages like DNPC are plot hooks, IMO, not something that has to be enforced. I'm more concerned that everyone is enjoying themselves and that there's a decent story and that characters stay in character than with establishing perfect balance or enforcing things.


The big black book agrees with you. On p. 340 of the FRED, it says, "Disadvantages are storytelling tools -- nothing more, and nothing less. than handles built onto a character to help the GM work him into the story he wants to tell." This gives the GM the explicit permission to use the characters disadvantages as he sees fit. If the GM chooses to ignore the 8-, 11-, 14- rolls for DNPC or Hunted appearance and only involve DNPCs or hunteds whenever it suits his story, then they only show up when it is convenient for the GM.



And really, when it comes to Disads that apply all the time (certain Phys Lims, etc), or always apply in certain situations (Vulnerability, etc), then the players should be taking those into account on their own, without me looking over their shoulders. That's how I handle it with my PCs -- I "enforce" them on myself. Of course, I don't see it that way...I see it as part of playing the character.

If someone takes a DNPC or Hunted in a game I run, then it will come up. It just doesn't come up at the whim of the dice or the percentages. It comes up when it makes sense for it to come up. Rarely, occasionally, or often, depending on what level they took it at.

I'm probably opening up another can of worms here, but if a player insisted on their 14- DNPC* actually showing up that much to actually inconvenience them (and the party), I might worry that they expected a bit more than their fair share of the "spotlight".

* What % is that?

What might be another disconnect here is what exactly it means for a DNPC to "show up". Does a PC's spouse calling and asking them to pick up something on the way home from the store count as an appearance?

It certainly does if the GM chooses to count it that way. The rules of the game give the GM explicit permission to ignore or change them. On p. 343, the FRED says, "DON'T LET THE RULES GET IN THE WAY OF HAVING FUN" (emphasis theirs). This is the only place in the book that I recall seeing all caps in the middle of a paragraph, so it must be important.

Apparently some people can only have fun if the rules are rigidly followed and every dice roll is made and none is ever arbitrarily waived by the GM. Others prefer a looser style where the GM follows the game rules where they support the story and ignores or violates them where it doesn't. Both styles of play are explicitly permitted by the rulebook. Neither one is more correct than the other.

If some players in a game strongly prefer strict interpretation of the rules with no exceptions to the rules and other players in the same game strongly prefer a fluid interpretation with exceptions that make sense in terms of the story line, there is likely to be conflict, not merely between characters, but between players as well. If any of you are playing in a group of people that choose a similar style, then be thankfull that you are not playing in a group of those other people.

[Kristopher]

The big black book agrees with you. On p. 340 of the FRED, it says, "Disadvantages are storytelling tools -- nothing more, and nothing less. than handles built onto a character to help the GM work him into the story he wants to tell." This gives the GM the explicit permission to use the characters disadvantages as he sees fit. If the GM chooses to ignore the 8-, 11-, 14- rolls for DNPC or Hunted appearance and only involve DNPCs or hunteds whenever it suits his story, then they only show up when it is convenient for the GM.

It certainly does if the GM chooses to count it that way. The rules of the game give the GM explicit permission to ignore or change them. On p. 343, the FRED says, "DON'T LET THE RULES GET IN THE WAY OF HAVING FUN" (emphasis theirs). This is the only place in the book that I recall seeing all caps in the middle of a paragraph, so it must be important.

Apparently some people can only have fun if the rules are rigidly followed and every dice roll is made and none is ever arbitrarily waived by the GM. Others prefer a looser style where the GM follows the game rules where they support the story and ignores or violates them where it doesn't. Both styles of play are explicitly permitted by the rulebook. Neither one is more correct than the other.

If some players in a game strongly prefer strict interpretation of the rules with no exceptions to the rules and other players in the same game strongly prefer a fluid interpretation with exceptions that make sense in terms of the story line, there is likely to be conflict, not merely between characters, but between players as well. If any of you are playing in a group of people that choose a similar style, then be thankfull that you are not playing in a group of those other people.

Thank you, Dan. Page 340 is the second reference in FRED to the fact that the rolls for Disadvantages such as Hunted and DNPC are conveniences for those who want them, and not a rule that must be strictly adhered to.

So, having established that beyond any doubt, my next question is: why do so many people believe that the rules say otherwise, and support a roll-always and roll-controled system for the Disadvantages in question?

[Lollygagger]

Well... disrupt, yes. Derail, no. I think that's just a matter of definition... things slowing down while you deal with a problem is _good_ for drama and suchlike.

Not of the problem is distracting from the primary storyline.

[Lollygagger]

So, having established that beyond any doubt, my next question is: why do so many people believe that the rules say otherwise, and support a roll-always and roll-controled system for the Disadvantages in question?

I blame d20.

[megaplayboy]

I kinda like Code of the Master Villain myself:
1. arrogant and overconfident
2. feels compelled to boast of plans
3. ruthlessly punishes subordinates who disappoint them
4. mocking and sadistic
5. vengeful and petty

there are variants: the Honorable Master Villain, the Ruthless Iron Age Master Villain, the Romantic Master Villain, the Noble but Misguided Master Villain, etc.

[Karmakaze]

I was a little surprised at the level of vitriol being aimed at GMs to take a more fluid view of enforcing disads than strict numerical enforcement.

Ignoring a disad entirely can be a bit frustrating, but placing them at natural plot points rather than forcing them on a session by session basis doesn't seem such a crime. I'm also more likely to take that 11- to mean "this NPC is featured in every other story arc" than "every other session", since sometimes we run rather short sessions that can be wholly taken up by one or two scenes (extended combat, for example, can take multiple sessions under the right circumstances).


What might be another disconnect here is what exactly it means for a DNPC to "show up". Does a PC's spouse calling and asking them to pick up something on the way home from the store count as an appearance?

If the entire appearance is that phone call and nothing else comes of it, no. Although in that case I'd just wonder why the GM bothered to put that in at all. On the other hand, if it means the other PCs rag on him for being 'pecked, or get suspicious ("Who do you keep taking those phone calls from? How can we trust you if you're so secretive") or if the phone rings at a bad time... For that matter, if the detour to the store causes the PC to run into a stickup, it counts.

If Kapitän Unglaublich has to cut short his nightly patrol because it's his daughter Katie's recital, I'd say that counts as an appearance, even if you never actually show the recital scene. Katie may not have appeared "on panel" but her existence had an effect. (And if Kapitän Unglaublich's player chooses to continue the patrol rather than attend, well, there will be repercussions later...)

[WhammeWhamme]

Thank you, Dan. Page 340 is the second reference in FRED to the fact that the rolls for Disadvantages such as Hunted and DNPC are conveniences for those who want them, and not a rule that must be strictly adhered to.

So, having established that beyond any doubt, my next question is: why do so many people believe that the rules say otherwise, and support a roll-always and roll-controled system for the Disadvantages in question?

Community norms and realistic expectations.

For one thing, that line is a rules change. An older player who started under 4th [or possibly earlier, I don't know] (and even *I* count as one of those) might not even realize it existed, and having been told of it, and knowing how badly it contrasts with games that were excellent, might easily consider it a stupid change that should be undone.

For another... it either choice is optional. But a GM should make a choice between the two options... and they should choose the _better_ option... and 'GM fiat now, then, and whenever you feel secure' isn't.

Frankly, that line contrasts with the general philosophy of Hero (i.e. that things can be statted up in detail, and that there is a POINT to that).

Such a shame... my first house rule, and it comes up over a petty internet squabble.

[WhammeWhamme]

Disrupt, no. To me. But remember, different conceptions. Disrupt is not SLOWING things down. It is somehow interfering with the grain of the game in what I would consider a negative manner. Something that breaks the mood.

Like I was trying to say, I think we mean the same thing... a disruption to the smooth flow of events, rather than the smooth flow of the _game_ is a good thing [you know, the interesting bits].

Disruption for the characters, not the players and GM.

[Kristopher]

From page 120 of 4th Edition Champions (DNPC):


"The frequency roll is given as a guideline for the GM; feel free to ignore it."

From page 122 of 4th Edition Champions (Hunted):


"This chance to show up is meant as a general guideline for the GM, not as a strict rule."

So that takes us back to 4th Edition, or at least that book, which has a note in the front saying it was first published in 1989 (which a google search on the ISBN number seems to confirm as the publishing date, in September that year).

So, almost 17 years of published HERO rules stating that the frequency rolls for Disadvantages are only guidelines, and that the GM should feel free to ignore them.

And since I started playing in 1993, that's exactly how every GM I've played HERO-based games with has handled them. Had a lot of fun, been in some great games, and so on...so it doesn't seem to have ruined our gaming.

Anyone have an older edition tucked away on their shelves, who might be able to look up an older set of rules for Disads and see what they say about the frequency rolls?

[Manic Typist]

Like I was trying to say, I think we mean the same thing... a disruption to the smooth flow of events, rather than the smooth flow of the _game_ is a good thing [you know, the interesting bits].

Disruption for the characters, not the players and GM.


Word.

[WhammeWhamme]

From page 120 of 4th Edition Champions (DNPC):



From page 122 of 4th Edition Champions (Hunted):



So that takes us back to 4th Edition, or at least that book, which has a note in the front saying it was first published in 1989 (which a google search on the ISBN number seems to confirm as the publishing date, in September that year).

So, almost 17 years of published HERO rules stating that the frequency rolls for Disadvantages are only guidelines, and that the GM should feel free to ignore them.

And since I started playing in 1993, that's exactly how every GM I've played HERO-based games with has handled them. Had a lot of fun, been in some great games, and so on...so it doesn't seem to have ruined our gaming.

Anyone have an older edition tucked away on their shelves, who might be able to look up an older set of rules for Disads and see what they say about the frequency rolls?

To quote from the book *I* learned to play from...:

DNPC: "The frequency roll is given as a guideline for the GM; feel free to ignore it if it doesn't fit with the evening's adventure. Just make up for it some other time".

Notice the line either absent in your book, or which you omitted on purpose, which agrees perfectly with what I've been saying

Hunted: Again, there is this line "He should make a note of it and have the Hunters show up during another session".


And I have NOT been saying a Hunter/DNPC should show up the session you roll them, I have been saying they should show up at the FREQUENCY you roll them.


And now I have my doubts you're accurately quoting from 5th edition, since you've selectively edited 4th...

[Kristopher]

To quote from the book *I* learned to play from...:

DNPC: "The frequency roll is given as a guideline for the GM; feel free to ignore it if it doesn't fit with the evening's adventure. Just make up for it some other time".

Notice the line either absent in your book, or which you omitted on purpose, which agrees perfectly with what I've been saying

Hunted: Again, there is this line "He should make a note of it and have the Hunters show up during another session".

And I have NOT been saying a Hunter/DNPC should show up the session you roll them, I have been saying they should show up at the FREQUENCY you roll them.

And now I have my doubts you're accurately quoting from 5th edition, since you've selectively edited 4th...

You mean where I stuck the elipses in and invited anyone to go look it up for themselves? Where someone else found a supporting reference at another spot in the book? If you want to insinuate that I'm lying about the FREd reference, please, go look it up and post the whole thing, and we'll see if anyone other than you actually thinks that I was being dishonest. Go ahead. :rolleyes:

As for "selectively editing", check yourself on that one, bub. The closest I came to "editing" the reference from 4th Ed is forgetting to add an ellipses at the end of the line from DNPC. What does it tell us about the health of your position on the matter if you have to stoop accusing me of lying and misquoting the rules because I forgot an elipses?

The fact remains that as far back as 1989, the GM was invited to do as he saw fit with the frequency of appearances of DNPCs and Hunteds in the game.

[WhammeWhamme]

You mean where I stuck the elipses in and invited anyone to go look it up for themselves? Where someone else found a supporting reference at another spot in the book? If you want to insinuate that I'm lying about the FREd reference, please, go look it up and post the whole thing, and we'll see if anyone other than you actually thinks that I was being dishonest. Go ahead. :rolleyes:

As for "selectively editing", check yourself on that one, bub. The closest I came to "editing" the reference from 4th Ed is forgetting to add an ellipses at the end of the line from DNPC. What does it tell us about the health of your position on the matter if you have to stoop accusing me of lying and misquoting the rules because I forgot an elipses?

The fact remains that as far back as 1989, the GM was invited to do as he saw fit with the frequency of appearances of DNPCs and Hunteds in the game.

Except, as my COMPLETE quotes show, he wasn't. He was told that it was okay to DELAY having them show up for a few sessions, not that it was okay to ignore the roll altogether.

Your 'selective editing' removed the qualifier; you claimed it supported the GM ignoring the roll altogether. In it's entirety, it doesn't.

4th _said_ the GM should roll. They may then not have them show up _that session_, but they should then have them show up in a later session. 4th did not support your viewpoint in the slightest, unless you selectively ignore part of the rules.

I repeat: "The frequency roll is given as a guideline for the GM; feel free to ignore it if it doesn't fit with the evening's adventure. Just make up for it some other time".

You are supposed to have them show up as frequently as the roll indicates. The GM doesn't have to have them show up in any given session, but every time they roll for them to show up and don't have them show up, they need to 'make up for it some other time'.

Which is what I do.


You lied by omission, leaving out a line that changed drastically the meaning of what you claimed the book said.

[CBikle]

In every game I've played and GMed in, campaign disads like Hunteds and DNPCs
pretty much only showed up when the GM incorporated them into the scenario.

This was largely done out of necessity, especially if you start rolling for the villain's hunteds.

Technically, if the hunteds do show up, you're expected to roll for their hunteds and DNPCs as well...

[Kristopher]

Except, as my COMPLETE quotes show, he wasn't. He was told that it was okay to DELAY having them show up for a few sessions, not that it was okay to ignore the roll altogether.

Your 'selective editing' removed the qualifier; you claimed it supported the GM ignoring the roll altogether. In it's entirety, it doesn't.

4th _said_ the GM should roll. They may then not have them show up _that session_, but they should then have them show up in a later session. 4th did not support your viewpoint in the slightest, unless you selectively ignore part of the rules.

I repeat: "The frequency roll is given as a guideline for the GM; feel free to ignore it if it doesn't fit with the evening's adventure. Just make up for it some other time".

"Some other time" = "whenever you feel like it". IMO.

Which pretty much leaves it entirely up to the GM.


You are supposed to have them show up as frequently as the roll indicates. The GM doesn't have to have them show up in any given session, but every time they roll for them to show up and don't have them show up, they need to 'make up for it some other time'.

Which is what I do.


You lied by omission, leaving out a line that changed drastically the meaning of what you claimed the book said.

:rolleyes:

By quoting from a book anyone can go look at?

OK...whatever.

[WhammeWhamme]

"Some other time" = "whenever you feel like it". IMO.

Which pretty much leaves it entirely up to the GM.

But they _are_ supposed to roll it, and they _are_ supposed to match appearances and die rolls 1:1.

Given the sentences talk about having difficulty working it into "that night's session", and it specifies they should be made up for, it is a stretch and a leap to say that it leaves it utterly up to the GM.

It provides clear guidelines and says what the GM should do. And, incidently, it states in no uncertain terms that the GM should roll every sessiom - rolling is NOT presented as optional.



:rolleyes:

By quoting from a book anyone can go look at?

OK...whatever.

By selectively quoting.

Selective quoting is an excellent way to misrepresent someone. By pulling out the right pieces, you can reverse the meaning. Context is important.

And the fact that a book is acessible is unimportant. I for one tend to believe my opponents to have been quoting accurately and so see no reason to go hunt down a book (which may have even been lent out).

Lies (any form of misleading) that can be easily disproved is no more honest for that.


Tell me... why did you omit the sentences after the sections you quoted that I included?

The only answer I can think of is, to quote a moderately humourous movie... "Because it's absolutely devastating to my case!".

[Hugh Neilson]

There is also no reason every roll means an appearance and a combat. Your Hunted could take action while you are engaged in something else, and you hear about it later. Maybe Clown Man leaves a dead Sparrow on your doorstep to taunt you about his killing of Sparrow the Kid Wonder. Maybe he just buys up a Reg Argonite rock and starts preparing it into a doomsday ray, and you only know the rock was stolen from PLANET Labs. These things could all happen while the PC is in space He finds out about them (or doesn't) on his return.

Maybe when I roll an appearance for a Hunted for every PC, that means their Huinteds have met and will work together on a plan to desyroy their respective nemeses.

If Aunt June's DNPC roll and Dr. Squid's Hunted roll both come up, maybe they've met and are becoming romantically involved, unknown to the PC, ArachnidBoy

[Kristopher]

But they _are_ supposed to roll it, and they _are_ supposed to match appearances and die rolls 1:1.

Given the sentences talk about having difficulty working it into "that night's session", and it specifies they should be made up for, it is a stretch and a leap to say that it leaves it utterly up to the GM.

It provides clear guidelines and says what the GM should do. And, incidently, it states in no uncertain terms that the GM should roll every sessiom - rolling is NOT presented as optional.



By selectively quoting.

Selective quoting is an excellent way to misrepresent someone. By pulling out the right pieces, you can reverse the meaning. Context is important.

And the fact that a book is acessible is unimportant. I for one tend to believe my opponents to have been quoting accurately and so see no reason to go hunt down a book (which may have even been lent out).

Lies (any form of misleading) that can be easily disproved is no more honest for that.

Tell me... why did you omit the sentences after the sections you quoted that I included?

The only answer I can think of is, to quote a moderately humourous movie... "Because it's absolutely devastating to my case!".

Accusing me of deliberate dishonesty is all you have left now, isn't it? :rolleyes: Seriously, this is about as devestating to my case as a wet noodle.

I left them out for the same reason I left out the parts of the FREd quote I left out...I didn't feel like typing in hundreds of words of quoted text, so I quoted the important parts.

The sentences I did quote from 4th are more than enough to demonstrate that the frequency rolls weren't a strict rule as far back as 1989. That's how I read it when I found the game in 1993, that's how every GM I've ever played the game with has read it. Including the sentences that I did quote in the book pretty much put the whole thing under GM and player discretion.

But since you want to expand the reading, fine, we can do that. Note that at the beginning of the relavent paragraph for DNPC, it says "adventure", not session. That alone gives the GM a tremendous amount of leeway, since the GM pretty much decides when an "adventure" is over and a new one begins. It could mean each session, it could mean each story arc -- it's very vague. And after that, it gives the GM even more leeway by allowing him to "Just make up for it some other time." When is "some other time"?

Hunted, on the other hand, specifically refers to "session", but it gives the GM complete leeway as to whether or not to obey the results of the roll for that session. But then, if he doesn't, it's pretty much up to the GM when to "make up for it" -- as in "during another session", which could be next session, or a year from then, it really doesn't say.

There's so much leeway given to the GM in those two paragraphs that the rolls might as well be left out entirely. And I can't find anything in either paragraph that specifically says that the DNPC or Hunted appreances must match the roll on a 1:1 ratio -- in fact, rolling for it makes it quite likely that it won't be at exactly that ratio unless you play the same PCs for hundreds of sessions (or is it adventures?).

Yeah, my case is really devestated now. Woo boy, don't know how I'll handle this... :rolleyes:

[Kristopher]

There is also no reason every roll means an appearance and a combat. Your Hunted could take action while you are engaged in something else, and you hear about it later. Maybe Clown Man leaves a dead Sparrow on your doorstep to taunt you about his killing of Sparrow the Kid Wonder. Maybe he just buys up a Reg Argonite rock and starts preparing it into a doomsday ray, and you only know the rock was stolen from PLANET Labs. These things could all happen while the PC is in space He finds out about them (or doesn't) on his return.

Maybe when I roll an appearance for a Hunted for every PC, that means their Huinteds have met and will work together on a plan to desyroy their respective nemeses.

If Aunt June's DNPC roll and Dr. Squid's Hunted roll both come up, maybe they've met and are becoming romantically involved, unknown to the PC, ArachnidBoy

All of which is so open-ended and up to the GM that I'm wondering why the rolls would ever be required?

[WhammeWhamme]

All of which is so open-ended and up to the GM that I'm wondering why the rolls would ever be required?

*Everything* is open ended and vague. What does getting hit for X STUN mean when you describe it? What does making your to-hit roll by Y mean when it's described? What does a failed contact roll entail happened?

The rules are there to provide a _fair_ framework, where your chances of hitting, getting knocked out, knowing someone useful, seducing an NPC, or doing a handstand are not up to the whim of the GM, but instead something you have some control over and knowledge of.

The rolls (and rules) are there to tell the GM what he should be doing to make sure the player gets to play the character they designed as they designed it - which, because Hero is better than many games, includes how often their arch foe or annoying sidekick is going to cause problems.


Answer me this, by the way: Why WOULD the rules require you to roll for something? (Anything; justify one roll, please)

[WhammeWhamme]

Accusing me of deliberate dishonesty is all you have left now, isn't it? :rolleyes: Seriously, this is about as devestating to my case as a wet noodle.

The fact that you used a dishonest tehnique (cherry picking?) is just incidental. The fact that 4th said what I said it did rather than what you said it did is what absolutely demolishes your claim that it didn't.



I left them out for the same reason I left out the parts of the FREd quote I left out...I didn't feel like typing in hundreds of words of quoted text, so I quoted the important parts.

The sentences I did quote from 4th are more than enough to demonstrate that the frequency rolls weren't a strict rule as far back as 1989. That's how I read it when I found the game in 1993, that's how every GM I've ever played the game with has read it. Including the sentences that I did quote in the book pretty much put the whole thing under GM and player discretion.

The words you left out were enough to reverse it.

I read it exactly as I've said I've read it, which is the visible meaning of the words, and if those other GM's either made an error in reading comprehension or threw in a gratuitious house rule, that's nothing to do with me.

I notice a shift from "it wasn't the rules" to "it wasn't a STRICT rule", incidently. Strict is meaningless. Hero is nice and friendly, it says that you can do things other ways, because, you know, you're always free to implement your own house rules, there are no rule police.

But, as I've been saying for several iterations now, the correct method was to roll and take a note of the need to include that character. And this gives power to players to determine the kind of NPC's and villains they would like to show up, or at least a way to present it formally to their GM (after all, the GM could just reject the disadvantage, but at least THEN they would be making it clear they don't want to run the kind of game the player is requesting).

It facilitates communication. Your favoured vagueness makes it no easier to tell a good story, but it does make it harder to protest poor GMing.



But since you want to expand the reading, fine, we can do that. Note that at the beginning of the relavent paragraph for DNPC, it says "adventure", not session. That alone gives the GM a tremendous amount of leeway, since the GM pretty much decides when an "adventure" is over and a new one begins. It could mean each session, it could mean each story arc -- it's very vague. And after that, it gives the GM even more leeway by allowing him to "Just make up for it some other time." When is "some other time"?

Hunted, on the other hand, specifically refers to "session", but it gives the GM complete leeway as to whether or not to obey the results of the roll for that session. But then, if he doesn't, it's pretty much up to the GM when to "make up for it" -- as in "during another session", which could be next session, or a year from then, it really doesn't say.

There's so much leeway given to the GM in those two paragraphs that the rolls might as well be left out entirely. And I can't find anything in either paragraph that specifically says that the DNPC or Hunted appreances must match the roll on a 1:1 ratio -- in fact, rolling for it makes it quite likely that it won't be at exactly that ratio unless you play the same PCs for hundreds of sessions (or is it adventures?).

Yeah, my case is really devestated now. Woo boy, don't know how I'll handle this... :rolleyes:

By resorting to rules lawyering to violate the spirit of the rule? Oh boy, that's a good comeback.

And as for the 1:1 ratio... 1 appearance per 1 instance of them being rolled as appearing. Yet another instance of either poor reading comprehension or wilful misrepresentation.

Bah.

[Kristopher]

The fact that you used a dishonest tehnique (cherry picking?) is just incidental. The fact that 4th said what I said it did rather than what you said it did is what absolutely demolishes your claim that it didn't.

I quoted what I thought was relevant. That we don't agree on what was relevent doesn't mean that I was being dishonest.

It says something about the strength of your arguement that you're going after my posting style, and me personally, at least as much as you're addressing the issue at hand.


The words you left out were enough to reverse it.

We disagree on that. (Obviously) After your insistence that 4th Ed demanded rolling for those Disads, I was pleasently surprised by the rather open-ended language I found when I went back to check.


I read it exactly as I've said I've read it, which is the visible meaning of the words, and if those other GM's either made an error in reading comprehension or threw in a gratuitious house rule, that's nothing to do with me.

Yeah, meaning so visible that the four GMs and many players I've been in HERO-based games with all read it the opposite way you did, and so did I back then, and again when I went back to check.

Instead of assuming that they -- and I -- coundn't read (ironic, considering that this is a text medium), or are bad GMs, or ignore the published rules "gratuitously", maybe for a moment you could entertain the following:

That everyone I played with graduated from college, and that includes two people who teach college English courses, a high-school teacher, a guy who made staff sargeant while in combat in Iraq and has been to most of the countries in Europe more than once and speaks three languages, a guy with what amounted to a triple major, a professional magician and storyteller who has been gaming since near the very beginning of RPGs, and so on. In other words, we weren't idiots and it's really unlikely that we had poor reading comprehension skills.

That we've all played a multitude of different game systems with many different people who have many different styles.

That all of us read it the same way, in good faith, and found that it worked very well using it exactly as we read it, and never needed the rolls or the percentages to make it work.

That we had a lot of fun playing in those campaigns of Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Wars adapted to HERO, and even a trial run of one guy's World of Darkness adapted to HERO.

That we'd all be stunned by the notion that getting a good balance of everyone's characters, and their respective plot hooks, into the game would require a hard and fast set of dice rolls.


I notice a shift from "it wasn't the rules" to "it wasn't a STRICT rule", incidently. Strict is meaningless. Hero is nice and friendly, it says that you can do things other ways, because, you know, you're always free to implement your own house rules, there are no rule police.

And, in the cases in question, it goes so far as to make an additional, specific point of given the GM even more leeway right there in the rules. Huh.


But, as I've been saying for several iterations now, the correct method was to roll and take a note of the need to include that character. And this gives power to players to determine the kind of NPC's and villains they would like to show up, or at least a way to present it formally to their GM (after all, the GM could just reject the disadvantage, but at least THEN they would be making it clear they don't want to run the kind of game the player is requesting).

What kind of player/GM relationship requires the communication to be hidden in the character sheet, speaking in a code of Disads and required rolls and NPC appearance percentages?


It facilitates communication. Your favoured vagueness makes it no easier to tell a good story, but it does make it harder to protest poor GMing.

How? If the GMing is poor, then talk to the GM about it, get another player to GM, or leave the group if both of those fail. Wow, that was really hard.


By resorting to rules lawyering to violate the spirit of the rule? Oh boy, that's a good comeback.

Now it's "rules lawyering" to take an option offered by the guys who wrote the book? IMO, "rules lawyering" is getting on the GM's case because one's personal NPCs are't getting their 55% airtime and demanding rolls.


And as for the 1:1 ratio... 1 appearance per 1 instance of them being rolled as appearing. Yet another instance of either poor reading comprehension or wilful misrepresentation.

"Either you can't read, or you're lying."

Nice. Maybe I'm working on something while I'm posting. Maybe I'm not feeling well. Maybe the cat was bugging me. Maybe one of a hundred things distracted me while I was reading your post and I misread the end of that one sentence. But no, none of that could be the case, I'm either lying or I have poor reading skills. Really nice, Whamme, really nice.

Again, it's telling that you're the one engaging in personal attacks as much as you're addressing the issue at hand. This didn't start out being about you, Whamme, and it still isn't about you. It got heated because you took a general comment I made about a (IMO) poor GMing style as a personal insult, which might tell the rest of us something.

Yes, the rules going back at least 17 years clearly provide the rules for rolling, and probably favor rolling as the default method in the older 4th Ed rules. I have no problem saying that, it's true.

What I do have a problem with the the assertion being made that anyone who didn't and does not roll, and/or who does not adhere very closely to the frequencies they represent, is a terrible GM who is cheating his players and ignoring the rules and the players in favor of his own whims. I have a problem with someone being so certain that his way is the only way and that his reading of the rules is correct that he's reduced to attacking the minutia of my posts and my quoting, and to attacking the GMing style of guys who were so good at gaming that I can't even game with average players or GMs now because I get frustrated by the lack of character, the powergaming, and the aimless GMing-by-numbers.

[Kristopher]

And really, the other thing I don't understand is this idea that I'm being "cheated" if my DNPCs and Hunteds don't show up. I don't care if they show up all the time, sometimes I'm happier if they don't. Let other people have the limelight if they want it, some people like their characters to get in trouble -- the deeper the better. Personally, I'm happy just staying in character and addressing whatever challenges are currently facing us and having fun. I don't need Disads/Flaws/whatever to define my PCs or keep them in the game or keep me in character. At the end of the day, that 150 points that most GMs want in Disads is more of a chore than a "way of communicating".

[WhammeWhamme]

And really, the other thing I don't understand is this idea that I'm being "cheated" if my DNPCs and Hunteds don't show up. I don't care if they show up all the time, sometimes I'm happier if they don't. Let other people have the limelight if they want it, some people like their characters to get in trouble -- the deeper the better. Personally, I'm happy just staying in character and addressing whatever challenges are currently facing us and having fun. I don't need Disads/Flaws/whatever to define my PCs or keep them in the game or keep me in character. At the end of the day, that 150 points that most GMs want in Disads is more of a chore than a "way of communicating".

If it's a chore, why do it? If you game with such great guys, why bother?

Heck, if you trust everyone so much and all, why do you need rules?



For those of us who occasionally have to deal with mere mortals, they help provide guideposts for keeping the spotlight balanced and people from feeling either ignored or put upon.

[WhammeWhamme]

I quoted what I thought was relevant. That we don't agree on what was relevent doesn't mean that I was being dishonest.

It says something about the strength of your arguement that you're going after my posting style, and me personally, at least as much as you're addressing the issue at hand.

No, it really doesn't say a thing. I could say it says something that you feel a need to use it as a debating point... are you feeling insecure?

I addressed it because I was offended by it. Since you insist you were doing nothing wrong, I'll accept that.



We disagree on that. (Obviously) After your insistence that 4th Ed demanded rolling for those Disads, I was pleasently surprised by the rather open-ended language I found when I went back to check.

So happy, you didn't bother double checking but went right ahead and declared victory... tsk.

It says that you have to roll every session. There is no ambiguity about _that_. It gives flexibility in what you do AFTER that. Which I'd ackknowledged. From my first post, where I said that was how I did it.



Yeah, meaning so visible that the four GMs and many players I've been in HERO-based games with all read it the opposite way you did, and so did I back then, and again when I went back to check.

Instead of assuming that they -- and I -- coundn't read (ironic, considering that this is a text medium), or are bad GMs, or ignore the published rules "gratuitously", maybe for a moment you could entertain the following:

That everyone I played with graduated from college, and that includes two people who teach college English courses, a high-school teacher, a guy who made staff sargeant while in combat in Iraq and has been to most of the countries in Europe more than once and speaks three languages, a guy with what amounted to a triple major, a professional magician and storyteller who has been gaming since near the very beginning of RPGs, and so on. In other words, we weren't idiots and it's really unlikely that we had poor reading comprehension skills.

That we've all played a multitude of different game systems with many different people who have many different styles.

That all of us read it the same way, in good faith, and found that it worked very well using it exactly as we read it, and never needed the rolls or the percentages to make it work.

That we had a lot of fun playing in those campaigns of Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Wars adapted to HERO, and even a trial run of one guy's World of Darkness adapted to HERO.

That we'd all be stunned by the notion that getting a good balance of everyone's characters, and their respective plot hooks, into the game would require a hard and fast set of dice rolls.

Did I say it was a requirement?

It's easy to misread things, especially if you didn't learn from the rules but instead learnt from another player and thus had a preconception of how it should work.

Or if you're taking baggage from another game, same thing.

And a longstanding house rule can begin to feel like it's actually part of the rules; the XP for Gold rule in old D&D is particularly prone to being denied due to how many people house ruled it awsay, for example.

I never accused them, or you, of being bad GMs; you did, however, accuse people who prefer to follow rules precisely of being bad GMs/players.

We're looking at the words. Tell me where it says the GM can opt to not roll either of them. It's not there.



And, in the cases in question, it goes so far as to make an additional, specific point of given the GM even more leeway right there in the rules. Huh.


It does that in a lot of places.



What kind of player/GM relationship requires the communication to be hidden in the character sheet, speaking in a code of Disads and required rolls and NPC appearance percentages?

One where the GM has an imperfect memory and needs to keep notes?

The GM and player should definately talk about this (and any other aspect of the character) in advance. But that's no reason to not write down the conclusions on the sheet.

And I'd like to note that the character sheet is a good shorthand. You need to convey a lot of information about game expectations. And most of it will (hopefully) be stuff the GM can glance at and approve, while potential problem areas can be eliminated without affecting anything else.

With a knowledgeable player, that can take a bit of work off the GM's shoulders.

Oh, and it's hard to communicate assumptions. Because, you know, they're assumptions. The Hero Chargen way of going over every aspect of a characters life helps a lot with that.



How? If the GMing is poor, then talk to the GM about it, get another player to GM, or leave the group if both of those fail. Wow, that was really hard.


The hard part is when you can't really point to something to complain about. You feel you're not getting enough spotlight, or too much, but someone might be hurt if you complained.

If I don't like a rule, it's the rules, deal with it. If I don't like the house rules, or bits of the GMing, it can be a little harder to complain if you like the person - or worse, if you also like most of what they're doing.



Now it's "rules lawyering" to take an option offered by the guys who wrote the book? IMO, "rules lawyering" is getting on the GM's case because one's personal NPCs are't getting their 55% airtime and demanding rolls.

After the GM said "Okay" to you submitting a character who would have NPCs showing 55% of the time?

You claim that, since they had leeway in when they have to have the Hunted they rolled show up, they can choose NEVER as an appropriate time.

Even if I accept that, I can think of a good reason to mandate rolling:

To remind them about the NPC in question. Having to roll whether they show up or not and then decide whether to include them in the next session helps remind the GM the NPC exists.

And the argument that being allowed to delay something means you're allowed to prevent it from ever happening is a logical leap anyway.



"Either you can't read, or you're lying."

Nice. Maybe I'm working on something while I'm posting. Maybe I'm not feeling well. Maybe the cat was bugging me. Maybe one of a hundred things distracted me while I was reading your post and I misread the end of that one sentence. But no, none of that could be the case, I'm either lying or I have poor reading skills. Really nice, Whamme, really nice.

Again, it's telling that you're the one engaging in personal attacks as much as you're addressing the issue at hand. This didn't start out being about you, Whamme, and it still isn't about you. It got heated because you took a general comment I made about a (IMO) poor GMing style as a personal insult, which might tell the rest of us something.

Yes, the rules going back at least 17 years clearly provide the rules for rolling, and probably favor rolling as the default method in the older 4th Ed rules. I have no problem saying that, it's true.

What I do have a problem with the the assertion being made that anyone who didn't and does not roll, and/or who does not adhere very closely to the frequencies they represent, is a terrible GM who is cheating his players and ignoring the rules and the players in favor of his own whims. I have a problem with someone being so certain that his way is the only way and that his reading of the rules is correct that he's reduced to attacking the minutia of my posts and my quoting, and to attacking the GMing style of guys who were so good at gaming that I can't even game with average players or GMs now because I get frustrated by the lack of character, the powergaming, and the aimless GMing-by-numbers.

If you get so bent out of shape when someone attacks your GMing style, perhaps you should refrain from attacking that of others.

As for the jab about your reading comprehension... I didn't say _why_ you didn't 'get' the intended meaning. I just noted that you did not get the intended meaning of a sentence as it was written (or you were trying to misrepresent it; I don't have access to your mind). You may or may not have some kind of reading problem; what I *can* tell is that if you thought that was what I was trying to say, you did not gather the correct meaning.

Whether it was caused by a cat, a neurological imbalance, being in a hurry, or a bad burrito, you observably did not comprehend my meaning, and given that you did so while reading the rulebook as well, it seems reasonable to absolve myself of blame.

I reread your posts to try and ensure I follow your reasoning. If *I* fail to comprehend something, I'd expect you to call me on it.

[Kristopher]

It says that you have to roll every session.

Really? Go re-read the DNPC entry in 4th Ed again. I'm pretty sure it says "adventure", as I just pointed out. Can't check the book, I'm at work.

And what exactly it means be adventure, I'm not sure. Session? Story arc? Whatever the players and GM feel like?



I reread your posts to try and ensure I follow your reasoning. If *I* fail to comprehend something, I'd expect you to call me on it.

:whistle:

[Enforcer84]

Thrust! Parry! GOUGE! FLAIL! SLAP! Dodge! Spin! Spin! Poke! Reposte! Scream!

[Kristopher]

Thrust! Parry! GOUGE! FLAIL! SLAP! Dodge! Spin! Spin! Poke! Reposte! Scream!

Nah.

I just have trouble leaving a groundless accusation unaddressed.

Anyway, at this point, it's the conversational equivalent of waiting for my opponent to realize that I've mortally wounded him, and fall down. Meanwhile, I still have to slap aside his attacks so he doesn't get any blood on me.

[WhammeWhamme]

Really? Go re-read the DNPC entry in 4th Ed again. I'm pretty sure it says "adventure", as I just pointed out. Can't check the book, I'm at work.

And what exactly it means be adventure, I'm not sure. Session? Story arc? Whatever the players and GM feel like?




:whistle:

One is worded each way.

Hunted rolls each "game session". DNPC rolls "before each adventure". The other point in the rules where the word Adventure was used is XP; an Adventure is the length of time between awarding experience. (And yes, an Adventure can specifically last longer than a session).

Beyond that, no, it's not defined.

I severely doubt they varied the wording because they varied their intent. Given the basic standard was for most adventures to last a single session (the XP chart notes a multi-session adventure as being something that might happen, and so NOT the norm, presumeably).

By the way, I'm still here because you rudely compared anyone who thinks rolling for disadvantages is a good idea with the epitome of bad roleplaying; D&D 'wargaming' RPGs.

That is insulting. You should apologize.

[Manic Typist]

Wait, so, just for me to understand, are you opening the discussion up to where you area allowed to extrapolate from the rules based on your own judgement calls?

Not being sarcastic. I just think that if we go there, then we are going to get a lot of arguments stemming from the different readings of intent in the book.

[Kristopher]

Wait, so, just for me to understand, are you opening the discussion up to where you area allowed to extrapolate from the rules based on your own judgement calls?

Not being sarcastic. I just think that if we go there, then we are going to get a lot of arguments stemming from the different readings of intent in the book.


We're already there.

Of course, in this case, it's kinda moot, since FREd entirely and unambiguously supports my position.

[WhammeWhamme]

We're already there.

Of course, in this case, it's kinda moot, since FREd entirely and unambiguously supports my position.

...of course, it DOES still allow for the rolling of disadvantages, the rolling of disadvantages is still the default position (which you are free to ignore, but you should probably tell the players that's what you're doing), and it being optional does not affect this:

"Rolling disadvantages does not make you a poor GM"

So no, it doesn't support your theory that the only good way to GM is to not roll disadvantages.

[Kristopher]

...of course, it DOES still allow for the rolling of disadvantages, the rolling of disadvantages is still the default position (which you are free to ignore, but you should probably tell the players that's what you're doing), and it being optional does not affect this:

"Rolling disadvantages does not make you a poor GM"

So no, it doesn't support your theory that the only good way to GM is to not roll disadvantages.

Was that my theory?

I think I missed where that was my theory.

I started out making a snide comment about people who, on these forums, vocally assert that things are terribly wrong with a game and with a GM if the GM doesn't roll and/or strictly follow the percentages. That's what I was commenting on, and what it seems to me you immediately stepped up to defend, and defend with a certain about of bile at that.

[WhammeWhamme]

Was that my theory?

I think I missed where that was my theory.

I started out making a snide comment about people who, on these forums, vocally assert that things are terribly wrong with a game and with a GM if the GM doesn't roll and/or strictly follow the percentages. That's what I was commenting on, and what it seems to me you immediately stepped up to defend, and defend with a certain about of bile at that.

vs

The very idea of rolling for Disads every game session strikes me as a very Gygaxian, D&D thing to do, along the lines of having a pair of charts in the back of the DM's Guide for coming up with what kind of prostitute the party might run into tonight...

or

"Sorry guys, I know we were left off at a cliffhanger last time we played, and that the space station was about to explode, but since Ultraman's DNPC hasn't come up in 3.25 sessions, we're going to do a flashback today to keep things balanced."

Both times, you're being extremely condescending and superior.

[Harry Canyon]

*Everything* is open ended and vague. What does getting hit for X STUN mean when you describe it? What does making your to-hit roll by Y mean when it's described? What does a failed contact roll entail happened?

The rules are there to provide a _fair_ framework, where your chances of hitting, getting knocked out, knowing someone useful, seducing an NPC, or doing a handstand are not up to the whim of the GM, but instead something you have some control over and knowledge of.

The rolls (and rules) are there to tell the GM what he should be doing to make sure the player gets to play the character they designed as they designed it - which, because Hero is better than many games, includes how often their arch foe or annoying sidekick is going to cause problems.


Answer me this, by the way: Why WOULD the rules require you to roll for something? (Anything; justify one roll, please)
Uhh... Why are you generalizing here? I'm fairly confident that the "why require a dice roll" reference was regarding Disadvantages; not damage rolls, "to hit" or any other roll in the game. So where did the leap to "what do you mean all rolls are bad" come from?

Take care,

Derek

[WhammeWhamme]

Uhh... Why are you generalizing here? I'm fairly confident that the "why require a dice roll" reference was regarding Disadvantages; not damage rolls, "to hit" or any other roll in the game. So where did the leap to "what do you mean all rolls are bad" come from?

Take care,

Derek

My point was that it is hard to justify rolling for anything.

You roll to add a random element to make things less predictable (and thus, hopefully, more fun) (or, alternatively, to prevent everything coming down to GM arbitration).

Why is the burden of proof on *me* to prove it's good to roll? Why not try and prove it's bad to roll for it?

The answer: Proving something is hard. If you can convince your opponent they have something to prove, you're going to win.

[Harry Canyon]

My point was that it is hard to justify rolling for anything.

You roll to add a random element to make things less predictable (and thus, hopefully, more fun) (or, alternatively, to prevent everything coming down to GM arbitration).
I completely agree with the 'random element' aspect. Personally I like rolls in some (perhaps even most) situations, but not all! A roll allows me as GM, IMO, two options. I take the roll at face value and work it into the current situation. Or I ignore the roll and use what I feel works for the story. I've no hard and fast rule about this :), I use either as it suits me, the game, and what I believe my player's expectations to be, at that moment in the game.



Why is the burden of proof on *me* to prove it's good to roll? Why not try and prove it's bad to roll for it?
Where did that come from? And who ever said it (the 'burden of proof') was? The original response was regarding Disadvantages, not "all rolls". You're generalizing here when the post was, IMO, specific.


The answer: Proving something is hard. If you can convince your opponent they have something to prove, you're going to win.
I disagree. I'll be specific. If I claim that it hurts if I stomp your foot, and then stomp your foot (and you're not wearing some sort of protective footgear), it will hurt. Proving something isn't difficult. Getting the other person to accept that it's been proven (i.e. they're wrong), now THAT's the difficult part.

As to the original poster... Good question. There have been some interesting replies. And truth be told, I haven't given it much thought as to how that's a disadvantage, until now. Curse you for making me think!! ;)

I did enjoy the Running Man reference and thought it was an appropriate example. I will ponder this further.

Take care,

Derek

[WhammeWhamme]

I completely agree with the 'random element' aspect. Personally I like rolls in some (perhaps even most) situations, but not all! A roll allows me as GM, IMO, two options. I take the roll at face value and work it into the current situation. Or I ignore the roll and use what I feel works for the story. I've no hard and fast rule about this :), I use either as it suits me, the game, and what I believe my player's expectations to be, at that moment in the game.

Have you ever found exercising the second option has led to players feeling irrelevant and/or bullet proof?



Where did that come from? And who ever said it (the 'burden of proof') was? The original response was regarding Disadvantages, not "all rolls". You're generalizing here when the post was, IMO, specific.

Because the answer is the same as for why you roll for anything: because it's better than not rolling.

It's more fun for many people to have an element of chance, rather than just be wandering through a Pick-A-Path book.

Having established why it's good to have an element of chance, let us reverse the question: why would you NOT want to roll for disadvantages?

Takes time? Not as much time as trying to make sure they don't show up too often by polling the players, keeping track of past sessions, and so forth.

Disrupts your plans? Not if you integrate it well; Hunteds and DNPCs can add that personal touch. Besides, lot's of things can disrupt the scenario. Most of them are players.

You don't do it in other games? This isn't other games, and we've established rolling is having fun.

Again, it's easy to shoot things down, it's hard to make something bulletproof.



I disagree. I'll be specific. If I claim that it hurts if I stomp your foot, and then stomp your foot (and you're not wearing some sort of protective footgear), it will hurt. Proving something isn't difficult. Getting the other person to accept that it's been proven (i.e. they're wrong), now THAT's the difficult part.

Good point, you're right, you've proven your point. The problem remains; it is hard (impossible, most likely) to put forth an unassailable position.



As to the original poster... Good question. There have been some interesting replies. And truth be told, I haven't given it much thought as to how that's a disadvantage, until now. Curse you for making me think!! ;)

I did enjoy the Running Man reference and thought it was an appropriate example. I will ponder this further.

Take care,

Derek

[Manic Typist]

You don't do it in other games? This isn't other games, and we've established rolling is having fun.



Um, not necessarily true, on the whole "rolling=fun" bit. But that is probably not what you meant. Because, from my understanding was that D&D was all about this, the aimless combat, etc. I don't think you're all about that.

So...... this was kind of a waste, I guess. But, just to make sure!

[Karmakaze]

Have you ever found exercising the second option has led to players feeling irrelevant and/or bullet proof?

I've never had a problem with it. Of course, I'm far more likely to add or remove a die (or adjust the difficulty modifier) to a roll to "nudge" a result rather than simply ignoring a roll I don't care for. And even that is something I use sparingly.

[WhammeWhamme]

Um, not necessarily true, on the whole "rolling=fun" bit. But that is probably not what you meant. Because, from my understanding was that D&D was all about this, the aimless combat, etc. I don't think you're all about that.

So...... this was kind of a waste, I guess. But, just to make sure!

This is why I threw out the challenge to K to argue for using dice at all.

You have to accept rolling is at least sometimes good to want to roll for something. If you hate dice, then

a) playing Hero "dice buckets required" System seems odd
b) there's no way you'll support rolling for ANYTHING

[Kristopher]

Rolling to resolve "conflicts" that occur, such as combat = good.

Rolling to determine which conflicts come to pass = bad.

One is mechanics, the other is story and players and GM.


IMO.

[WhammeWhamme]

Rolling to resolve "conflicts" that occur, such as combat = good.

Rolling to determine which conflicts come to pass = bad.

One is mechanics, the other is story and players and GM.


IMO.

Why? Why is it bad? Because you say so? Because it is written in the Book of Kristopher that rolling to determine which conflicts come to pass is bad?

Or is it just your opinion?

Crafting a good story is the challenge for the GM.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Crafting a good story is the challenge for the GM.
It's not crafting a story if you give over control of what events happen to the dice. Sure, use die rolls to influence your choices, or to select the choices from which you pick elements for your plot, but don't surrender control to the dice for purposes of story creation.

If you're going to do that, you might as well play a computer game or read a Choose Your Own Adventure book, because you have about as much control over the story.

[Karmakaze]

Or is it just your opinion?

Perhaps the letters IMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMHO) in the passage you quoted might answer that question for you.

[death tribble]

Can we leave off the great WhammeWhamme vs Kristopher punch up ?
Your points have degenerated into a one-up-man-ship contest which makes me feel like ignoring anything you write anywhere else. And reporting you to moderators for a lack of respect for the other boards' users. This will include the use of any sarcastic remark or use of smilie that either of you use in reply to this.

If you have points for a disadvantage it must be used. However it might not be in the GMs control how long or short a session is so Kristopher's first example of 3.25 sessions is misleading. It is up to the GM to make sure the disads turn up both for the heroes and for the villains.

[Kristopher]

Perhaps the letters IMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMHO) in the passage you quoted might answer that question for you.

:thumbup:

[Kristopher]

And reporting you to moderators for a lack of respect for the other boards' users. This will include the use of any sarcastic remark or use of smilie that either of you use in reply to this.


.

[death tribble]

That only serves to prove my point, Kristopher, and to show your lack of maturity.
Delete that post and I'll delete this one.

[Kristopher]

That only serves to prove my point, Kristopher, and to show your lack of maturity.
Delete that post and I'll delete this one.

You say that like I'd be desperate to have it deleted. I posted it, I stand by it.

I posted it to make sure there was a record of you threatening someone ("Do as I say, or I'll report you to the moderators!") and trying to play the unappointed and undeserved role of Forum Cop. Since you missed the irony, I'll spell it out...you basically told me that if I said anything at all, you'd "be right" about me, so I "said nothing", as a gesture of pointing out your little conversational trap and your childish threat.

In another dose of irony...in case you hadn't noticed, it had already been about 36 hours since I made a direct reply to that other guy. All your little attempt to "save" this thread did was dredge up something that had already sunk almost to the bottom.

Get over yourself.

If a moderator, or an administator, someone whose job it actually is to do so, were to post or PM me, and make a polite request that I refrain from posting in this or another thread, I'd be happy to do so.

[WhammeWhamme]

It's not crafting a story if you give over control of what events happen to the dice. Sure, use die rolls to influence your choices, or to select the choices from which you pick elements for your plot, but don't surrender control to the dice for purposes of story creation.

If you're going to do that, you might as well play a computer game or read a Choose Your Own Adventure book, because you have about as much control over the story.

Er... the what?

Is this some kind of sarcasm?

Randomizing the elements you will be using and then crafting a story that makes that all make sense is about as far from a Pick A Path as you can get.


Seriously, given the whole world to pick elements from, people tend to make bland stories. Add in restrictions, you get better ideas, because it forces you to think and rethink how to work within them.

This is why there is so much generic fantasy junk: people just put in stuff to make their storytelling easier, rather than sticking to preset limitations.


Now, yes, you CAN set your own limitations. Problem: your own setting of limits will be subject to the same problem.


If you think that being told by an external force to "Include this character as a villain, get that one in trouble, and don't use these ones" makes it impossible to be creative or create a good story...

[WhammeWhamme]

Perhaps the letters IMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMHO) in the passage you quoted might answer that question for you.

Ah, good. So there's no reason for it, no need to justify it, and it can be ignored, disregarded, and laughed at as anyone sees fit.

After all, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion with no reason.

Anyone who can be convinced by THAT already agreed with him.


So, my point is entirely accurate. He's got nothing except bald assertions.

[WhammeWhamme]

Can we leave off the great WhammeWhamme vs Kristopher punch up ?
Your points have degenerated into a one-up-man-ship contest which makes me feel like ignoring anything you write anywhere else. And reporting you to moderators for a lack of respect for the other boards' users. This will include the use of any sarcastic remark or use of smilie that either of you use in reply to this.

If you have points for a disadvantage it must be used. However it might not be in the GMs control how long or short a session is so Kristopher's first example of 3.25 sessions is misleading. It is up to the GM to make sure the disads turn up both for the heroes and for the villains.

I derive satisfaction from my posts. You don't have to read them.
I don't see how respect for other users comes into it.

And there is no one true way.

[Lollygagger]

So, my point is entirely accurate. He's got nothing except bald assertions.


Just like you.

[WhammeWhamme]

Just like you.

Hellloooooo?

Reasoning. And NOT trying to claim there is only one right way to run a game.

[Lollygagger]

Hellloooooo?

Reasoning. And NOT trying to claim there is only one right way to run a game.


Personally, I don't care. He's not trying to do what you're claiming, you're not trying to do what he's claiming, and you're both coming away like spoiled five year olds arguing over who gets to eat the last tootstie roll. Your argument descended from "your point is incorrect" to "you're a poo-poo head" a long way back.

So in the interest of shutting the both of you up already, let's sum up:


The game shouldn't be ruled by dice rolls. This is true.

A good GM can but isn't required to incorporate the dice rolls into his campaign's story. This is also true.


There. Argument over. You're both right and you're both wrong. Now can it with the personal attacks, the both of you. Its getting old.

[death tribble]

Well in light of the fact that Kristopher cannot act like an adult and has in my opinion no respect for the community as a whole, I have reported him to the moderators. If they want to take action against me as well fair enough. If I have a problem with how someone is acting I will say it in front of everyone before going to the moderators. And I will give people fair notice of that.
Kristopher has an opinion which is good. Unfortunately the way he expresses that opinion, or criticisms of other people's opinions, is not.
WhammeWhamme disagreed as well but was at least civil about it.

[Karmakaze]

Kristopher has an opinion which is good. Unfortunately the way he expresses that opinion, or criticisms of other people's opinions, is not.
WhammeWhamme disagreed as well but was at least civil about it.

You thought WhammeWhamme was being civil?

By my read of the thread there was enough incredibly rude to go around.

[Ben Seeman]

By my read of it, this thread should be closed and those involved need to re-evaulate whether or not they want to continue using the Hero Games Discussion Boards. :thumbdown