Disadvantages Issues

[Istaran]

I just recently noticed something with Distinctive Features.

Per the rules, if a Distinctive Feature is a distinctive odor, it's worth -5 points because Smell is "Uncommonly-Used." This is factually incorrect; the sense of Smell is in constant use, and if someone has a noticeable and distinctive odor you're very likely to notice it before you see or hear the individual.

Character sheets with smell-related Distinctive Features (like the Skunk Ape from Vibora Bay) correctly omit this Modifier; it should be corrected for the rulebook, though.

I'd say to get the full value (rather than the -5) your distinctive feature vs smell should provide at least an extra +4 to PER checks to notice it. This is to offset the default -4 to smell PER checks for smell if it is not bought as Targeting.
You could alternately take the -5 and decline the +4 to PER checks for a scent that is distinctively different but won't usually be noticed by humans (typicaly normals have a 7- roll to notice it, not exactly likely) but will tip off most animals automatically and can be detected by others.

[BobGreenwade]

I had a brainstorm this morning about Physical Limitation, though probably the principle could be applied elsewhere.

5ER states: "If a character has a Power that directly counteracts his Physical Limitation, the GM may want to consider reducing the value of the Disadvantage (at the very least, the degree of impairment may need to be reduced)." My thought is, what if this was an explicit element to the Physical Limitation Disadvantage? If the character has a Power that partially compensates for the Limitation, it's worth -5 points; if the Power fully compensates, it's worth -10 points (but might still be worth something, since Powers can be Suppressed, Drained, and so forth).

Going a step beyond that, this could even be yet another application for putting Power Limitations on Disadvantages -- the amount of the Limitation represents how often, and by how much, the Power compensates for the Physical Limitation.

With a little extra thought, a similar mechanic could even be used to convert Dependences and Susceptibilities into Physical Limitations.

[Talon]

For Physical Limitation, I would rather just apply the existing categories (frequency and degree) taking into account the effects of the Power. "Can't Walk" might be Frequently, Fully for most people, but Infrequently, Fully if the character has Flight which works 6 days out of 7.

[Hugh Neilson]

I dislike the theory that having compensatory powers reduces the disadvantage cost without reducing the power's cost. You paid full freight for Spatial Awareness. Why does that mean you should save any less points from being Blind?

Selling back 5 points of PD generates 5 points even if you have a 30 PD Force Field, and selling back END isn't reduced because your powers are 0 END.

[The Main Man]

One thing that sometimes bothers me about Disadvantages is Frequency itself.

I think that Frequency should ultimately be in the GM's hands.

[Klaus Mogensen]

One thing that sometimes bothers me about Disadvantages is Frequency itself.

I think that Frequency should ultimately be in the GM's hands.
Which brings me back to my suggestion that most Disadvantages shouldn't give points up front, but provide 'hero points' when they come up. No need to assign a Frequency; the reward will always be proportional to how often the Disadvantage comes into play.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Which brings me back to my suggestion that most Disadvantages shouldn't give points up front, but provide 'hero points' when they come up. No need to assign a Frequency; the reward will always be proportional to how often the Disadvantage comes into play.

- Klaus

And I totally agree with this.:thumbup:

I also think that Characters should only be built on just "Base Points" and that "Disadvantages" should not generate Character points but that they instead generate HAP's in game-play.

[PhilFleischmann]

I dislike the theory that having compensatory powers reduces the disadvantage cost without reducing the power's cost. You paid full freight for Spatial Awareness. Why does that mean you should save any less points from being Blind?

Selling back 5 points of PD generates 5 points even if you have a 30 PD Force Field, and selling back END isn't reduced because your powers are 0 END.
Exactly! If I have -25 points for being blind, but I spend 25 points for a compensating sense, I've gained nothing, so why should I be penalized? And the same goes for all Physical Limitations. You "lose" the points already by having to spend points for the compensating powers that you wouldn't have to buy otherwise. It's already fair. Don't mess with it.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Exactly! If I have -25 points for being blind, but I spend 25 points for a compensating sense, I've gained nothing, so why should I be penalized? And the same goes for all Physical Limitations. You "lose" the points already by having to spend points for the compensating powers that you wouldn't have to buy otherwise. It's already fair. Don't mess with it.
While I buy the argument that a compensating sense doesn't make Blind worth no points, there are other examples where this would be the case.

Let's say that a character has taken the Physical Limitation "No Legs". That's normally Fully, All the Time (25 points), plus you can buy back Running and Leaping for another 14 points; a total of 39 points.

Now, the character buys 6" Flight for 12 points. Suddenly there's very little limitation to not having legs. The character now gets 27 points net for something that only limits the character when his Flight is Drained or otherwise can't be used.

At the very least, "No Legs" should be downgraded to Infrequently, Fully (15 points + 14 for buy-back), but even this should only be allowed if Flight proves useless about every fourth encounter (~ an 8- roll).

- Klaus

[Talon]

Since you can buy back Running, perhaps the thing to do is to rate "No Legs" for the non-movement aspects only, which would reduce the cost past 15 most likely.

[Chris Goodwin]

A snake has No Legs, but it doesn't have 0" Running.

[AnotherSkip]

Yeah and If someone sees my Secret ID flying around they might just guess that I have SOME sort of metahuman powers......

[BobGreenwade]

I wonder... what if the structure for Disadvantages, instead of adding, multiplied the frequency and severity to get the value?

Let's take, for example, the three basic types of Disadvantage: Physical Limitation, Psychological Limitation, and Social Limitation. We can structure their values like so:



Value Frequency
1 Rare
2 Infrequent
3 Frequent
4 Very Frequent
5 Ubiquitous

Value Severity
1 Slight
2 Minor
3 Moderate
4 Major
5 Total

So for a few examples:

Anosmic (no sense of smell): Infrequent (2), Moderate (3) -- 6 points.

Blind: Very Frequent (4), Major (4) -- 16 points.

Does Not Understand Earth Culture: Frequent (3), Minor (2) -- 6 points.

Claustrophobic: Infrequent (2), Moderate (3) -- 6 points.

Dedicated To Justice: Very Frequent (4), Major (4) -- 16 points.

Hates Cats: Infrequent (2), Minor (2) -- 4 points.

Secret Identity: Frequent (3), Major (4) -- 12 points.

Slave: Very Frequent (4), Total (5) -- 20 points.

Other Disadvantages can use variations on that theme. For example, Enraged can add the Chance to Become and the Change to Recover, multiply by the frequency of circumstances, and then have a multiplier for going full-on Berserk:



Value Frequency
1 Rare
2 Infrequent
3 Frequent
4 Very Frequent
5 Ubiquitous

Value Chance To Become Enraged/Recover
1 8-/14-
2 11-/14- or 8-/11-
3 14-/14- or 11-/11- or 8-/8-
4 14-/11- or 11-/8-
5 14-/8-

Value State
1 Enraged
2 Berserk


This does yield a maximum value of 50 (and I haven't even explored the possibility of increasing rolls to 17- or "automatic"), but if a circumstance is around practically all the time that makes the character go full-on Berserk 90% of the time with only 25% of snapping out of it then it's probably worth that much anyway.

It does shift around some values for specific Disadvantages a bit, and of course YMMV on the actual designations (not just campaign to campaign but also character to character within a campaign), but I think this can be a good start.

[Vulcan]

Oh noes, more maths to scare the newbies! http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/angst.gif

On a serious note, that's a pretty good idea, Bob. I think it could work.

[Istaran]

And I totally agree with this.:thumbup:

I also think that Characters should only be built on just "Base Points" and that "Disadvantages" should not generate Character points but that they instead generate HAP's in game-play.


Exactly! If I have -25 points for being blind, but I spend 25 points for a compensating sense, I've gained nothing, so why should I be penalized? And the same goes for all Physical Limitations. You "lose" the points already by having to spend points for the compensating powers that you wouldn't have to buy otherwise. It's already fair. Don't mess with it.

I haven't entirely decided which side of this debate I'm on, but I think the HAP for disads idea has an interesting effect in this scenario. Even if we gave the character build points at creation and HAP when the disad comes up, the person with the compensating power is likely to get significantly less HAP than the person with uncompensated disads. For example, blind guy with active sonar: he gets HAP only when he gets in trouble because he can't discern colors or color variations (i.e. painted shapes and non-textured writing). He doesn't even get it for being unable to read if an ally is handy who can safely read aloud for him. If he had no targetting sense he would get HAP every time he makes or is targetted by an attack roll! Likewise flying torso boy (Bob Oblong's super alter-ego?) will get HAP whenever he needs to drive a standard vehicle, but not if an ally is handy who can reach the pedals. Of course if we do go with a pure HAP basis that also means your disads can easily become worthless if you have allies that can cover for you. Or else you get the kind of cheesy situation of getting HAP because an ally has to cover for you.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Of course if we do go with a pure HAP basis that also means your disads can easily become worthless if you have allies that can cover for you.
But shouldn't this be the case? How many games have you seen characters with a "poor" disad who aren't really disadvantaged because their richer teammates buy them the equipment they need?

With Hero Points, the player may decide his character is too proud to ask his teammates for aid in a certain situation, and hence get points. Or that he overcomes his pride, gets the aid, but no points. This is much better fodder for role-playing than a static up-front disad that the player easily can ignore unless the GM keeps reminding him.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

This point (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69248) opens another issue related to disadvantages. I suggest that, if we are moving to a "hero points for disad use" rather than "point savings for disads taken" model, the same should apply to followers, vehicles, bases, etc. Presumably, powers like Summon, Duplication, etc. must also be considered.

Under this model, I think the following need to be considered:

- what is the disad cap for such entities?

- does the influence of a Summoned creature's disad's also grant Hero Points?

- does use of such entities become a powerful tool in enhancing a character's ability to build up Hero Points? Should this be restricted in some manner?

- is it more effective to build your DNPC as a cheap follower with lots of disad's than taking him as a disad?

- is it more effective to take a disadvantage than a limitation? [eg. rather than, say, Cyclops putting a Limitation on his EB, he takes the Phys Lim "If visor/sunglasses removed, must be blind or fire EB at maximum power"] We often suggest a disadvantage rather than a fairly minor limitation. Will that still be the case, or will the disad's Hero Points be more lucrative than the limitation's point savings?

[The Main Man]

Of course if we do go with a pure HAP basis that also means your disads can easily become worthless if you have allies that can cover for you. Or else you get the kind of cheesy situation of getting HAP because an ally has to cover for you.

We usually read about the heroes overcoming obstacles and having Disadvantages grant HAP's in exchange for when they actually limit the character seems like a great way to express this.

As the credo goes, "A Disadvantage that does not Limit the character is worth no points."

This extends to the HAP scenario in which the credo becomes conditional.

They grant HAP's when the character actually is at a disadvantage but they won't when the character has some kind of help.

Your disads may be "worthless" but on the other hand isn't having a whole other character(s) to help you better than a few points to fudge some rolls?:)

"A friend in need..."

[BobGreenwade]

There's a discussion in the Characteristics thread about the NCM Disadvantage, and I recalled a couple of my ideas for making it a true Disadvantage.

First, when Adjustment Powers raise the Characteristics above the stated maximum, they have half effect.

Second, the character takes heroic options in combat. They're subject to Impairing and Disabling damage, do Knockdown instead of Knockback (or need an Advantage to do true Knockback), spend 1 END per 5 STR instead of per 10 STR, and so forth.

I'm sure other ideas will come to my mind, and others', but I thought I'd cross-post them here as the proper place to discuss the issue. :)

[The Main Man]

There's a discussion in the Characteristics thread about the NCM Disadvantage, and I recalled a couple of my ideas for making it a true Disadvantage.

First, when Adjustment Powers raise the Characteristics above the stated maximum, they have half effect.

Second, the character takes heroic options in combat. They're subject to Impairing and Disabling damage, do Knockdown instead of Knockback (or need an Advantage to do true Knockback), spend 1 END per 5 STR instead of per 10 STR, and so forth.

I'm sure other ideas will come to my mind, and others', but I thought I'd cross-post them here as the proper place to discuss the issue. :)
These sound like Physical Limitations to me but at the same time I think that having their values listed in the core book for those that would like to take them would be interesting.:thumbup:

[Hugh Neilson]

There's a discussion in the Characteristics thread about the NCM Disadvantage, and I recalled a couple of my ideas for making it a true Disadvantage.

First, when Adjustment Powers raise the Characteristics above the stated maximum, they have half effect.

Second, the character takes heroic options in combat. They're subject to Impairing and Disabling damage, do Knockdown instead of Knockback (or need an Advantage to do true Knockback), spend 1 END per 5 STR instead of per 10 STR, and so forth.

I'm sure other ideas will come to my mind, and others', but I thought I'd cross-post them here as the proper place to discuss the issue. :)

I'd be inclined to remove both the Adjustment Power issue and the "Doubled Cost" issue. It would then be a completely different disadvantage.

At a higher level, the character could be prohibited from having any ability which is not "normal human". Normal humans don't have a 75 STR, 29 DEX and 35 CON. They also don't generate energy blasts, create force fields and fly under their own power.

But if another character has the superhuman ability to augment a normal human, why not let him Aid the normal human into superhuman territory - that's not the normal human's ability.

[RDU Neil]

Q: Should we change the way Disadvantages reward you for taking/using them?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. The way the HERO System is currently set up, every player character basically takes his full allotment of Disadvantages because, despite the fact that theoretically a Disadvantaged and a Disadvantage-less character should be equally effective, the truth is we all know that they’re not. The points you get from a Disadvantage buy you things you can use all the time, whereas even the most restrictive Disadvantage only affects a character some of the time.

This leads to some undesireable results. First, characters often tend to choose Disadvantages solely to get the points for them, not because they help to define the character and provide plot hooks for the GM (which to my mind is their true purpose). Second, characters often have to load themselves down with Disadvantages they don’t really want just to have enough points to be competitive with other characters, which makes them less fun to play. Third, to avoid these traps, characters often “metagame” the system to find Disadvantages that aren’t really all that restrictive.

I can see two possible solutions to this problem that appeal to me, one of which is pretty radical and the other of which is less so. The first is to take a page from many “modern” game designs and give characters something other than Character Points for Disadvantages. In this case, and using 5E point totals here, every Standard Superheroic character would just start out with a flat 350 Character Points, period, no need for any Disadvantages at all. However, if he took Disadvantages, and one of them came into play, he’d get something for that. What would he get? Well, assuming I incorporate the Hero Points rules into the core rules (see the “General Issues” thread), my thinking is that he’d get an extra Hero Point, usable only in that scenario, that scene, or for some other restricted period of time.


YES YES YES YES YES YES... a THOUSAND TIMES YES!

This would do so much to alter the thinking of Hero away from metagaming the system because I have to or feel like I'm challenged to... toward, "How can my character contribute to a good game, a great story, a fun experience!"

I totally think this should be implemented in some form or another.

Thank you for considering this.

[BobGreenwade]

But if another character has the superhuman ability to augment a normal human, why not let him Aid the normal human into superhuman territory - that's not the normal human's ability.There's something to that, but I'd still make it part of the Limitation. Generally I give a "hard maximum" of 20 extra points (before doubling) in stats above the stated max, figuring that spending that much extra effectively "buys off" the Disadvantage anyway. This principle could hold for Adjustment Powers used by the character himself, meaning the most he'd be penalized is 20 character points worth. For Adjustment Powers used on him by others, no penalty accrues.

[steamteck]

YES YES YES YES YES YES... a THOUSAND TIMES YES!

This would do so much to alter the thinking of Hero away from metagaming the system because I have to or feel like I'm challenged to... toward, "How can my character contribute to a good game, a great story, a fun experience!"

I totally think this should be implemented in some form or another.

Thank you for considering this.


Maybe as an alternate. I'm afraid it would be a complete deal breaker for me. I absolutely love the way they work now. Disadvantages allow use to really tailor the character and balance him/her out make an interesting character who shines in some ways but has Achilles heals and interesting quirks. The other way seems you real have to be a really dedicated to play that way. Lets cripple my character for a reward that comes up later . No thanks!

[Vulcan]

A "Hero Point" System wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me, although I think I would perfer to leave the rules as is.

I would want one more thing added to such a system, based on something from Spycraft's Hero Point-type system. If the GM ignores the disad for a set number of game sessions (it was set at 10 in Spycraft, and that sounds reasonable to me), then the character gets XP and the disad is considered 'paid off.'

That encourages GM's to use the disads, and gives the players something if the GM ignores their character's background. :D

[Klaus Mogensen]

Maybe as an alternate. I'm afraid it would be a complete deal breaker for me. I absolutely love the way they work now. Disadvantages allow use to really tailor the character and balance him/her out make an interesting character who shines in some ways but has Achilles heals and interesting quirks. The other way seems you real have to be a really dedicated to play that way. Lets cripple my character for a reward that comes up later . No thanks!
The way I would prefer it is that Disadvantages that limit a character's power (e.g. Susceptibility, Phys Lim and Vulnerability) should be worth Character Points, whereas Disadvantages that mainly are story hooks (e.g. DNPC, Hunted, Distinctive Features, Rival, and Psych Lim) should be awarded with Hero Points when they come into play.

I would also (as I have suggested before) rename the latter type as Background Traits and merge them with Perks. When you use such a trait to your advantage, you would have to pay a Hero Point, and when the trait intrudes in a negative function, you would get a Hero Point.

For instance, when you use a Contact or affiliation to an organisation to gain useful intel or equipment, you would pay a Hero Point, but when the Contact or organisations requires something of you, you gain a Hero Point.

Or if a character has the Distinctive Feature: "Beastlike" and this scares a little girl that he rescues, this could be worth a Hero Point if the player roleplays the character's sadness. However, if the character uses his looks as a bonus to a Presence Attack, he would have to pay a Hero Point (if he does this often, the GM may insist that he buys more PRE instead).

Or a Celebrity may spend a point to use his celebrity status to achieve something, and would get a point if he is recognized when wanting to be incognito, or if he is sued.

Skills that mainly are used as background flavor could also be Background Traits. Rather than spending X points on "Egyptology 18-", just write "A leading expert on ancient Egypt". If the character ever gets to use this in a non-flavor way, he must pay a Hero Point.

- Klaus

[RDU Neil]

The way I would prefer it is that Disadvantages that limit a character's power (e.g. Susceptibility, Phys Lim and Vulnerability) should be worth Character Points,

On this point, I would go even one step further. Such disads/limitations need to be divided between "mechanical" limitation (14- Activation, Reduced Penetration kind of thing) vs. "SFX" limitations (must be in water once an hour, Susceptibility to radiation, etc.)

Granted, I'm using more Limitations examples here vs. Disads, but I don't know of many Disads (in the traditional sense) focused on Powers. They are usually focused on the character... making them inherently "SFX" and not mechanical. I'd have a hard time thinking of mechanical Disads. Even the X2 Stun from X attack is usually from an SFX attack... not x2 From Energy Blasts, which is a mechanic. Disads that are strictly vs. a mechanic should be separated from disads vs. a SFX (hard radiation, ice attacks, whatever) which are Game Rule/Play experience level issues.

Then again... why Disads have even been called Disads is a question. Powers have Advantages and Limitations... why not Advantages and Disadvantages. Call Disads something else.

[BobGreenwade]

I've given some thought to the new Disadvantages chart I proposed a few days ago, and I think it'd work better to add 1 point to the frequency level (possibly with an additional level at 1 point):


Value Frequency
1 Very Rare
2 Rare
3 Infrequent
4 Frequent
5 Very Frequent
6 Ubiquitous

Value Severity
1 Trivial
2 Slight
3 Minor
4 Moderate
5 Major
6 Total
This would make Frequent and Moderate worth 16 points (4 x 4), which is in line with the current value of 15 points; and make Ubiquitous and Total worth 36 points, which is probably about what it should be worth if it's that extreme.

A "Caution" sign can be given for Trivial consequences, since it could be so easily abused -- a Ubiquitous Limitation with Trivial consequences would be just a constant, minor annoyance, and it can be as annoying to the GM and other players as it is to the character.

[Vulcan]

The way I would prefer it is that Disadvantages that limit a character's power (e.g. Susceptibility, Phys Lim and Vulnerability) should be worth Character Points, whereas Disadvantages that mainly are story hooks (e.g. DNPC, Hunted, Distinctive Features, Rival, and Psych Lim) should be awarded with Hero Points when they come into play.

I would also (as I have suggested before) rename the latter type as Background Traits and merge them with Perks. When you use such a trait to your advantage, you would have to pay a Hero Point, and when the trait intrudes in a negative function, you would get a Hero Point.

For instance, when you use a Contact or affiliation to an organisation to gain useful intel or equipment, you would pay a Hero Point, but when the Contact or organisations requires something of you, you gain a Hero Point.

Or if a character has the Distinctive Feature: "Beastlike" and this scares a little girl that he rescues, this could be worth a Hero Point if the player roleplays the character's sadness. However, if the character uses his looks as a bonus to a Presence Attack, he would have to pay a Hero Point (if he does this often, the GM may insist that he buys more PRE instead).

Or a Celebrity may spend a point to use his celebrity status to achieve something, and would get a point if he is recognized when wanting to be incognito, or if he is sued.

Skills that mainly are used as background flavor could also be Background Traits. Rather than spending X points on "Egyptology 18-", just write "A leading expert on ancient Egypt". If the character ever gets to use this in a non-flavor way, he must pay a Hero Point.

- Klaus

So what do I do if I don't want to depend on having a Hero Point available to use my contact/background skill/whatever at a relavent moment?

[Klaus Mogensen]

So what do I do if I don't want to depend on having a Hero Point available to use my contact/background skill/whatever at a relavent moment?
I can see three solutions to this:
1: You're allowed to go to negative Hero Points. Having negative Hero Points may have effects like Unluck.
2: You can pay character points to get a dedicated Hero Point. This can be used once per scene for a specific purpose, e.g. having a certain contact available.
3: If you want to always have a background skill ready, you should of course buy it as a real skill. Similarly, you could buy a "contact" as a skill: Get Information from Contact (or simply buy enough levels in Streetwise).

- Klaus

[Kdansky]

If you want to have the skill always available because you think it is important enough, then you should buy it normally with character points. But how often have you bought skills which you never used? If you did that, then you probably did not like it very much to spend points for that. If you didn't, then I am pretty sure you metagamed that. ;)

[BlackSword]

So what do I do if I don't want to depend on having a Hero Point available to use my contact/background skill/whatever at a relavent moment?
Buy it as normal. So your contact has the normal roll you have for contacts. Your background skills costs points, and your whatever, costs points so that it is consistent.

While in general I think I would prefer to have a characters background written out with zero cost background skills, in some genres I could see being able to use a (or multiple) Hero points to generate a relevant background story (or flashback) to help in a particular situation. "Say guys, I don't think I ever told you about the summer I spent in Italy studying the renassaince masters, I think I remember something about DaVinci putting hidden messages in his paintings..."

[The Main Man]

Quick One: "Unluck" isn't a word last I checked - make it "Bad Luck."

[AnotherSkip]

My spell checker doesn't like alot of the names of powers or Rp Conventions, 'and frankly My dear i dont give a dam'.

[The Main Man]

1. Speaking of spellcheck, it's spelled, "damn."

2. "Unlucky" and "Bad Luck" are words/terms and your spellchecker should recognise them (if that is going to be our litmus test).

"EB, RKA, d6, STR, etc." are not words so there is no reason for spellcheck to recognise them.

"Unluck," OTOH, isn't a word but merely an unnecessarily improperly termed opposite number to Luck.

I'll admit that it is a grammatical pet peeve but why have fake words when you can have real ones?

[AnotherSkip]

I dont give a Hoover.

Feel better? j/k

wp more later

[Hugh Neilson]

I'll admit that it is a grammatical pet peeve but why have fake words when you can have real ones?

Considering how much confusion gets caused when the real word used doesn't follow its dictionary meaning (energy blasts which don't act against energy defense; killing attacks which KO instead of killing; Teleport that must cross intervening space; extra dimensional movement that changes the world around you instead of moving you to a different dimension, Block defined as a SuperDodge), maybe we should go the other way and make up new words for EVERY mechanic.

"He hits for 17 Blorg points"

"I have 12 Blorg Defense, so I take 5. My Cromulance roll drops by 1".

Then again, perhaps not...

[The Main Man]

Hey wait a second I think we should give more credit to Blorg.

Now make your CROM roll.

[AnotherSkip]

werent you one of the guys against CROM Rolls in the discussion for 6th ed anyways?

[The Main Man]

werent you one of the guys against CROM Rolls in the discussion for 6th ed anyways?

No, no, no, no... I am in full support of CROM remaining in HERO.I mean, CROM, while it's roots lie in Swords and Sorcery literature, has a place in all of my games and I believe that CROM is so muchmore than a Talent or Perk if you know how to apply it.HERO 5e clearly states that CROM measures what is best in a PC's life: crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.The Power Blorg is another case, seeing as how poorly defined and underused the CHAR PRO is...

[BobGreenwade]

...'frankly My dear i dont give a dam'.
1. Speaking of spellcheck, it's spelled, "damn."Unless you're a beaver with a major cavity problem. :D

[Lord Liaden]

Q: Should Age/Normal Characteristic Maxima be removed as a Disadvantage?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. They don’t really function quite like other Disadvantages, and really work better simply as “campaign definers” set by the GM rather than as Disadvantages.


For my Superheroic campaigns I've incorporated a Disadvantage I call "Mere Mortal," for the same cost as Normal Characteristic Maxima. Essentially, a Mere Mortal is an Heroic-level character in a Superheroic world. Any or all of the rules that distinguish characters in an Heroic game from those in a Super one can apply to a Mere Mortal, depending on what the GM chooses to use: NCM, more limited Pushing, attacks doing Knockdown instead of Knockback, LTE, Encumbrance, STR Minima, etc.; plus any optional rules a GM uses to make a normal person more restricted in their abilities, or easier to injure or kill, than a super.

I've found this to be a useful addition to qualitatively distinguish between normal people and superheroes/villains, both mechanically and for flavor; especially when the players want to feel that their characters are truly beyond normal humanity.

[Leafar the Lost]

I am fine with changing Disadvantages to Complications.

[BobGreenwade]

Here's an idea that I'd like to see opinions on.

What if the nature of a Distinctive Feature is subliminal? That is, people just react badly to the character, but don't necessarily know why.

One example is the warrior-mages in the Turakian Age (I forget their proper name, and I don't have the book with me right now). Everyone "just knows it" when someone is from that people group, and doesn't trust them.

Another is a theoretical phenomenon called the "Garbo Syndrome" (though Greta Garbo, despite being the one it's named for, probably didn't actually have it even if it does really exist). This is someone who's so determined to be left alone that he gives off a pheromone that prompts people to comply, to the point of ostracizing. Other people aren't aware of why they don't like to be around the person, they just know that they don't.

My thought is that a subliminal Distinctive Feature should be worth +5 points, because people can't allow for or resist its Pavlovian effects. If the character is aware of it and how it works, he might or might not be able to Conceal it (for example, if the character's skin gives off a flickering that causes anxiety in others, he could wear makeup or a face-covering mask to hide it), but unlike those that affect others consciously, they can't so easily resist it themselves.

Anyway, it's an idea I thought I'd just toss out there for consideration.

[SCUBA Hero]

For my Superheroic campaigns I've incorporated a Disadvantage I call "Mere Mortal," for the same cost as Normal Characteristic Maxima. Essentially, a Mere Mortal is an Heroic-level character in a Superheroic world. Any or all of the rules that distinguish characters in an Heroic game from those in a Super one can apply to a Mere Mortal, depending on what the GM chooses to use: NCM, more limited Pushing, attacks doing Knockdown instead of Knockback, LTE, Encumbrance, STR Minima, etc.; plus any optional rules a GM uses to make a normal person more restricted in their abilities, or easier to injure or kill, than a super.

I've found this to be a useful addition to qualitatively distinguish between normal people and superheroes/villains, both mechanically and for flavor; especially when the players want to feel that their characters are truly beyond normal humanity.Our group also has a 'Mere Mortal' NPC Disadvantage (Netzilla's creation, not mine) that any BODY taken after defenses is doubled.

Makes you very protective of your DNPCs, as well as overkill attacks on normals...

[Netzilla]

Our group also has a 'Mere Mortal' NPC Disadvantage (Netzilla's creation, not mine) that any BODY taken after defenses is doubled.

Makes you very protective of your DNPCs, as well as overkill attacks on normals...

Not really mine. I originally swiped it from someone on the old Champions Mailing List. Also, it makes them subject to the Wounding rules.

[ideasmith]

One thing that might be useful is some way to encourage players to define the Disads first, before the Characteristics/Skills/Talents/Powers/etc.. I've found that, at least when I do so, character creation involves less backtracking and the character ends up more interesting. I haven't thought of a reasonable rule change that might cause that. Suggestions, anyone?

[Greywind]

Most players I've had start with character background and concept before trying to flesh out the disads.

Seems to work better.

[ideasmith]

Most players I've had start with character background and concept before trying to flesh out the disads.

Seems to work better.

Just in case there was any doubt, I would like to state here that "Characteristics/Skills/Talents/Powers/etc." was not intended to include background or concept.

[Greywind]

Actually, I find as they write their backgrounds, usually brainstorming as they go, they get the basics for the rest of their build as well.

Why try to make a rule that works your way when other ways work as well, if not better, depending on the person involved?

[ideasmith]

Actually, I find as they write their backgrounds, usually brainstorming as they go, they get the basics for the rest of their build as well.

Why try to make a rule that works your way when other ways work as well, if not better, depending on the person involved?


I was using the words 'define' and 'encourage' in different senses than you appear to be taking them.

By 'define', I was meant determining the full rule write-ups, not just the basics. By 'encourage' I meant to empart confidence that it was worth trying, rather than assuming that the order in the rulebooks as written was somehow 'right', as I did for far too long.

I apologize for the inclarity, and thank you for bringing up points that helped me to clarify my points.

[Greywind]

Non-issue. Just working on the debate. :thumbup:

[Vulcan]

One thing that might be useful is some way to encourage players to define the Disads first, before the Characteristics/Skills/Talents/Powers/etc.. I've found that, at least when I do so, character creation involves less backtracking and the character ends up more interesting. I haven't thought of a reasonable rule change that might cause that. Suggestions, anyone?

Put the disad section at the beginning of the character creation chapters, rather than at the end?

[ideasmith]

Put the disad section at the beginning of the character creation chapters, rather than at the end?

I was going to suggest that myself, but then I read the Rules of the Sixth Edition Forum (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63264).

[AnotherSkip]

though non-tangental a suggestion of background first then character build wouldn't be outta place. reinforced on character sheets and designs. After all the source material IS first then we apply gaming mechanics afterwards.

[Klaus Mogensen]

though non-tangental a suggestion of background first then character build wouldn't be outta place. reinforced on character sheets and designs. After all the source material IS first then we apply gaming mechanics afterwards.
The Babylon Project (old B5 game) had a life path system where you started by describing your character's childhood, then his youth, and finally his adulthood. For each step, you should assign a couple of skills and background traits (perks, talents, disadvantages). You would still pay/get points for these, but the system ensured that you would have abilities that fit your background and that characters would have a background.

I don't see this as a required part of character creation, but it could be a suggestion for chargen more structured than just "assign X points".

- Klaus

[nexus]

though non-tangential a suggestion of background first then character build wouldn't be outta place.

That's the way I've been doing it for years.

[BrilliantHelm]

Since I play Fantasy Hero soley, now, I cannot speak for Champions, though I did play it for 23 years. In Fantasy Hero, 75 points worth of disadvantages is just fine. 50 points is easy to come up with for disadvantages, 25 points makes the players dig a little deeper and just adds to the character's flavor.

I think disadvantages serve a real purpose, and there is nothing like a hunted showing up, or a character having to face down other characters evil acts (vis-a-vis paladin), to remind the character that he has disadvantages. I see no reason to change them for Fantasy Hero.

[dsatow]

I was thinking in the car (I do all my thinking in a car instead of in the john :) ), about a lot of the frequency rolls. Something which I have posted not really liking too much in a campaign with lots of characters with lots of hunteds. Now I may have already posted this, so I apologize if I have already. My meory is getting old and I tend to ramble a bit...

Instead of a frequency for Hunteds, I like to see it as intensity. Such that at 8-, the hunted is favored in combat but the hunter doesn't go out of his way to fight the hunted. At 11- the hunter not only favors the hunted, but is actively searching for the hunted. Finally, at 14-, the hunter not only is favoring and hunting the target, they are setting up traps and elaborate and expensive scemes to capture/kill the hunted.

[Vulcan]

I look at Frequency as a way for the player to tell the GM how often he wants this foe to show up. If my character has a history with VIPER - say, they killed his family and he stole their prototype power armor - and I take Hunted: VIPER 14-, I'm telling the GM that VIPER is a major part of this character's world.

As the GM, you then take that and weave it into your planned plotline. While you may have planned on using (say) Genocide, perhaps a bit of alteration to the story allows you to cater to the player's desire to play out a bit of his background!

So you get a plothook the character will bite every time, and the player get to show off his character's background. Everyone wins!

[tesuji]

RE frequency

i would love it if frequency were not expressed as a roll but rather as an actual frequency, say expressed as X seesions in ten.

mainly because i dont think people actually look at the die roll and do the math. i dont think they think their hunteds are gonna show up two sessions in three when they choose 11- or 9 times in 10 when they choose 14-.

cut down on the misunderstanding by just making it "this many times in ten on average this hunted ill play a role, rear its ugly head."

[IndianaJoe3]

Instead of a frequency for Hunteds, I like to see it as intensity. Such that at 8-, the hunted is favored in combat but the hunter doesn't go out of his way to fight the hunted. At 11- the hunter not only favors the hunted, but is actively searching for the hunted. Finally, at 14-, the hunter not only is favoring and hunting the target, they are setting up traps and elaborate and expensive scemes to capture/kill the hunted.

I have a different perspective. If the Hunted is on an 8-, then the Hunter is probably not actively hunting the character (or they have lots of other targets to hunt). An 11- represents the character's personal nemesis. If the character is Hunted on a 14-, the campaign generally revolves around the Hunter.

[Greywind]

If the character is Hunted on a 14-, the campaign generally revolves around the Hunter.Which tends to suck for the other players...

[Vulcan]

Only if the GM hasn't planned for it.

[IndianaJoe3]

If the character is Hunted on a 14-, the campaign generally revolves around the Hunter.


Which tends to suck for the other players...

They could all take it (or a related Hunted). A 14- Hunted is going to show up 3/4 of the time (give or take, I forget the exact percentage). The GM shouldn't allow it unless the campaign can accommodate that.

[Vulcan]

Let me give an example of how Hunted works as a plot hook.

My reformed villian character, Vigil, used to work for 'the Organization' (as he was told). So when he reformed and became a hero (PC), I gave him 'Hunted by the Organization, 14-.'

The GM already had a major plotline in place (another group of players had a team based in St. Louis in the same world, we were based in Chicago, and both teams would up working toward the same goal) using the Institute for Human Advancement.

So how does 'the Organization' fit into this world? Simple. 'The Organization' was a small branch of the Institute that manipluated mutants/metahumans into working toward the same goals...

[BobGreenwade]

If the character is Hunted on a 14-, the campaign generally revolves around the Hunter.It shouldn't. The 14- Hunter has involvement in 90% of the cases, but he doesn't have to be at the center of everything. He may simply be helping the bad guys, or using the situation to screw over the Hunted character.

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating if only for those who are still posting and have lost track: The assumption that "Hunted = open attack" is something that should be addressed in the new book.

[Vulcan]

It shouldn't. The 14- Hunter has involvement in 90% of the cases, but he doesn't have to be at the center of everything. He may simply be helping the bad guys, or using the situation to screw over the Hunted character.

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating if only for those who are still posting and have lost track: The assumption that "Hunted = open attack" is something that should be addressed in the new book.

Totally agreed.

In the example with Vigil, 'the Organization' never once directly attacked him. The parent orgaization, the Insitite for Human Advancement, was only directly involved ONCE.

Another branch, PURE (Paranormals Ultimately Require Extinction, basically Genocide with a different name) was a constant thorn in our sides, though!

So the lesson is, look at the character's Hunteds, and figure out ways to work them into your plot. Don't assume that they have to overturn your plot instead...

[Vulcan]

After a long discussion about Disadvantages in the HERO System Discussion (it begins a couple pages into the DNPC thread), I think the Disadvanage system is fundamentally sound, it just needs to be polished a bit.

First, the name needs to change. Disadvantages make it sound like 'these are things the GM should use to screw over the character; use them as a club to beat him with.' And I think that takes away a lot of the subtlety of what we know as disads, and causes things like the 'Hunted 14- has to dominate the game' misunderstandings. Instead, I think they should be called 'Plot Hooks' or something similar. That emphasizes how a GM should be looking at them: as ways to integrate the character into the game world!

Next, the point costs should be evaluated in light of that change. A Plot Hook should not grant points soley on how badly it screws the character (the current standard); they should grant points based on how thoroughly it hooks the character into the plot!

One last thing: Psychological Limitations. While these are essential tools for establishing a character's personality, I think most of them are significantly overvalued for what are basically personality quirks - and I say this because every character I've ever played easily had their full allotment of psych limits, and then a few '0-pointer's on top of that!

So psych limits probably need to be... more limited. Not in total points, but in the value of individual psych limits. Frankly, a Moderate psych limit should start at 0 points, because it's more of a roleplaying thing than anything else. Strong and Total commitments can then be 5 and 10 points. Likewise, an Uncommon psych limit should probably start at 0 points, because it's unlikely to ever function in it's roll as a plot hook. Common can be 5 points, and Very Common can be 10.

So now, Uncommon/Moderate is worth no points; RP it and its' okay. A total parlayzing fear of taratulas (uncommon in most games) is worth 10 points, it could come into play and be important. Total Code vs. Killing is worth 20 points, because a dead body still makes a great plot hook.

Long and short, make it so that there are fewer 20-25 point psych limits. They just aren't worth that many points!

[Greywind]

They could all take it (or a related Hunted). A 14- Hunted is going to show up 3/4 of the time (give or take, I forget the exact percentage). The GM shouldn't allow it unless the campaign can accommodate that.
Which becomes a shoehorn for the rest of the group.

It shouldn't. The 14- Hunter has involvement in 90% of the cases, but he doesn't have to be at the center of everything. He may simply be helping the bad guys, or using the situation to screw over the Hunted character.

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating if only for those who are still posting and have lost track: The assumption that "Hunted = open attack" is something that should be addressed in the new book.Granted the roll shows some form of involvement, not necessarily direct.

[PhilFleischmann]

So just for an example (or two), based on characters we all know, and for the sake of genre simulation, what would (any of) you say are the Hunted frequencies of:

Spiderman Hunted by the Green Coblin?
Superman Hunted by Lex Luthor?
The X-Men Hunted by Magneto?
The X-Men Hunted by the Sentinels?
Spiderman or any of the "Unregistered Avengers" Hunted by the various registration enforcement people.
Batman Hunted by Joker?
etc.

I don't know what the answers are myself, but I can't help but think that there has to be a limit (not a rules limit, but just a genre/setting/common sense-based limit) to how much someone can be Hunted. If your main nemesis hunts you on 14-, and you've got several main enemies in your rogue's gallery hunting you on 11-, and some more less-common enemies on 8-, when do you ever get to battle with anyone else, let alone have a life or even get some sleep?

[Hugh Neilson]

So just for an example (or two), based on characters we all know, and for the sake of genre simulation, what would (any of) you say are the Hunted frequencies of:

Spiderman Hunted by the Green Coblin?
Superman Hunted by Lex Luthor?
The X-Men Hunted by Magneto?
The X-Men Hunted by the Sentinels?
Spiderman or any of the "Unregistered Avengers" Hunted by the various registration enforcement people.
Batman Hunted by Joker?
etc.

At what point in their careers? Green Goblin first appeared in SpiderMan #14 or so, so Spidey wasn't hunted as a starting character. Gobby's hatred for Spidey wasn't there in the early appearances either. The registration act came along much later.

Magneto appeared in X-Men #1, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 if memory serves. That's 14- or higher. After that, he was gone until about issue 47.

In the source material, Hunters seem to ebb and flow, changing as time goes by. This is a poor match for the game concept.

Spider Man has a rogue's gallery of Hunted's, as do many characters (Batman for example). Perhaps that is the more appropriate Champions disad.


I don't know what the answers are myself, but I can't help but think that there has to be a limit (not a rules limit, but just a genre/setting/common sense-based limit) to how much someone can be Hunted. If your main nemesis hunts you on 14-, and you've got several main enemies in your rogue's gallery hunting you on 11-, and some more less-common enemies on 8-, when do you ever get to battle with anyone else, let alone have a life or even get some sleep?

We historically tried to keep all Hunteds at 8-. This highlights the need for a better discussion of how often a given Hunted would reasonably appear, how many of those appearances would convert to a full-blown combat, or even a scenario in the game, and how Hunteds should be rotated in and out, allowing for resolution of one Hunted and commencement of another without spending points to buy one off.

[Greywind]

Green Goblin I'd put 8-. Spider-Man has a large rogues gallery.

Luthor, depending on circumstance and time frame, I'd put at 11-. 8- now.

X-Men/Magneto 11-. Their goals were the same. Their methods were different. Being a school, the X-Men sought mutants to help. Magneto sought mutants to bring into the Brotherhood. This is better reflected by the Hellfire Club, though.

Sentinels 8- or by plot.

Initiative hunteds 8- or by flavor. Vignette where they avoid a team or some such.

The Joker is part of Batman's rogues gallery. 8- in general for the gallery or by plot.

[PhilFleischmann]

We historically tried to keep all Hunteds at 8-. This highlights the need for a better discussion of how often a given Hunted would reasonably appear, how many of those appearances would convert to a full-blown combat, or even a scenario in the game, and how Hunteds should be rotated in and out, allowing for resolution of one Hunted and commencement of another without spending points to buy one off.
I completely agree. It seems to me that most Hunteds should be 8-. And as I mentioned in my first post to this thread, Hunted (as well as all other Disads with a "X or less" roll) should allow for greater granularity than just 8, 11, or 14.

So an "As Powerful, 8-" Hunted is worth 10 points.
It would be worth 11 points for 9-, or 13 points for 10-, or 17 points for 12-, or 18 points for 13-.

[BobGreenwade]

I completely agree. It seems to me that most Hunteds should be 8-. And as I mentioned in my first post to this thread, Hunted (as well as all other Disads with a "X or less" roll) should allow for greater granularity than just 8, 11, or 14.

So an "As Powerful, 8-" Hunted is worth 10 points.
It would be worth 11 points for 9-, or 13 points for 10-, or 17 points for 12-, or 18 points for 13-.Actually, this relates to what I was proposing some time ago regarding allowing Limitations to be put on Disadvantages.

In this example, the full cost for a Hunter would be based on the Hunter showing up all the time. Then an Activation Roll would be applied for how often this happens. Thus, if being Hunted by VIPER all the time is worth 40 points (however that's to be put together), then being Hunted 14- would be 36 points, 11- would be 20 points, and 8- would be 13 points.

[Vulcan]

So just for an example (or two), based on characters we all know, and for the sake of genre simulation, what would (any of) you say are the Hunted frequencies of:

Spiderman Hunted by the Green Coblin?

8-. But that's because Spidey has a huge portfolio of other Hunteds.


Superman Hunted by Lex Luthor?

14-. But Lex is a prime example of a mastermind villian; it is highly likely that 90% of the trouble Superman encounters was started with Lex mking a phone call...


The X-Men Hunted by Magneto?

8- to 11-, depending on the period. Although there was a brief time where Magneto was a member of the X-Men...


The X-Men Hunted by the Sentinels?

8- for the Senitnels themselves. 14- for the Marvel equivalent of GENOCIDE, which is always stirring trouble for them.


Spiderman or any of the "Unregistered Avengers" Hunted by the various registration enforcement people.

Too recent for me to be able to judge; I dropped out of comics after the Uncanny X-Men split into two titles...


Batman Hunted by Joker?

Like Spidey vs. GG, 8- because Batman also has a vast number of Hunteds...


I don't know what the answers are myself, but I can't help but think that there has to be a limit (not a rules limit, but just a genre/setting/common sense-based limit) to how much someone can be Hunted. If your main nemesis hunts you on 14-, and you've got several main enemies in your rogue's gallery hunting you on 11-, and some more less-common enemies on 8-, when do you ever get to battle with anyone else, let alone have a life or even get some sleep?

For comics, it's easy; the writers determine when the Hunteds show up to inconvenience the charcacter.

In an RPG, sub 'GM' for 'writer' and there you go.

Perhaps the problem isn't that people are hunting the PC, but that the rules state frequency levels that are pretty ridiculously high!

Perhaps something more like 8-, 10-, 12- might be more appropriate. Or 6-, 9-, 12-. At any rate, something to make the 'common' Hunter show up a bit less often than 90% of the time...

OR, we could emphaisze in the Hunted rules that the roll doesn't mean the Hunter necessarily shows up ready to fight, but that he takes some sort of action to inconveniece the PC. This could be as simple as asking another supervillian to take a crack at the PC, having his lawyer file a spurious lawsuit against the PC ("The PC" - who missed a shot last fight... - "vaporized my pet hamster!"), or just that unbeknownst to the PC the Hunter achieves a short-term goal that will enable him to defeat or discredit the PC next time they meet...

[The Main Man]

I personally think that Disadvantage Frequencies should be abstracted altogether from a roll - IMO they should be guides, not mechanics.

[tesuji]

OR, we could emphaisze in the Hunted rules that the roll doesn't mean the Hunter necessarily shows up ready to fight, but that he takes some sort of action to inconveniece the PC. This could be as simple as asking another supervillian to take a crack at the PC, having his lawyer file a spurious lawsuit against the PC ("The PC" - who missed a shot last fight... - "vaporized my pet hamster!"), or just that unbeknownst to the PC the Hunter achieves a short-term goal that will enable him to defeat or discredit the PC next time they meet...

Well i agree with the notion but i would not emphasize it.

if we treat disadvantages as disadvantages, since we are still scoring by frequency and impact that seems to be the case, then i really have to ask...

character a has no hunteds and every week some bad guy shows up and we have to deal with him.
character b has 50 pts of hunted who sit around and call up those other bad guys to be the villain of the week.

not really seeing the "disadvantage" as opposed to seeing the "plot hook"

Now if ** IF ** the game impact of the huned was more concrete such as "this guy is after me, a recurring villain, and i have a tougher time with him ecause..." and you score the disad based on the degree of advantage the enemy has over him (something specific not general power level) with examples like "i suffer a -1 to hit" or "i am vulnerable to his attack" etc.

think of it as a very flexible vulnerability or susceptability or such but keyed to the enemy specifically (and maybe things very closesly related)

but an actual impact.


One guy i saw tended to try to play hunted this way...
pick a character from the core books, or an archtype i can take easily, and let hi be my hunted cuz i can handle him. Like say take an electric npc as hunted but have lots of "protection from electricity" defenses or choose a slow strong brick for you flying blaster's hunted, who happens to be vulnerable to your main attack. glass jaw hunted

[BobGreenwade]

I think there does need to be a better definition of what constitutes a Hunter. It would have to be more than just a recurring enemy, but someone who specifically has issues with the hero. I'll fill this out with a couple of examples:

It's been a while since I read the X-Men comics, but based on my admittedly weak memory I don't think they'd necessarily be Hunted by Magneto. He doesn't, on the whole, come out after the X-Men, but rather they come out after him. (I could be wrong about that.) Juggernaut might be an appropriate Hunter for Professor X, but that's about it.

Similarly, of all the villains in Flash's Rogues Gallery, the only one that might qualify as a Hunter for the Scarlet Speedster (whether Barry Allen or Wally West) would be Professor Zoom. The others did create an organization of sorts, but that's in response to the Flash's interference. Captain Cold could be a "late-addition" Hunter based on his sister's death, but that'd be a GM's decision.

That's my thought, anyway.

[Vulcan]

One guy i saw tended to try to play hunted this way...
pick a character from the core books, or an archtype i can take easily, and let hi be my hunted cuz i can handle him. Like say take an electric npc as hunted but have lots of "protection from electricity" defenses or choose a slow strong brick for you flying blaster's hunted, who happens to be vulnerable to your main attack. glass jaw hunted

He'd be in for a fun time with my GM. Electric guy vs. Captain Insulation? Can we say 'stalker'? He'd attack NPC's, destroy his place of employment, raid his trash to get information to ruin his credit rating... If the 'hunter' cannot stand up in combat to the person he's hunting, then he finds other ways to make the Hunted miserable. That of course assumes the GM would have allowed such a thing in the first place.

In short, you choose the power level. The GM then enforces it.

Glass Jaw Hunted? Yeah right. My GM would (for that matter, any GM should) alter the Hunted to have a different Vulnerability. You choose 'more powerful,' you get 'more powerful.'

[tesuji]

Glass Jaw Hunted? Yeah right. My GM would (for that matter, any GM should) alter the Hunted to have a different Vulnerability. You choose 'more powerful,' you get 'more powerful.'

i would stop short og saying "any gm should" simply because, as you observe, there are ways to still make the hunted useful.

For example, if he chose a more powerful but vulmerable to me, villain then the story could read something like "yeah dr blasto should have creamed me back then and we would all have been toast except that he was not doing well when wet and my waterbolt was just the right thing" and so the rivalry is started precisely because the villain is at risk and now wants revenge, to prove the loss was a fluke, or just wants to eliminate the guy who can hurt him etc and goes about finding ways to do these things.

It was an opportunity imo. not a problem.

[Vulcan]

If the hero can RELIABLY beat a hunted face-to-face, the hunted should not be 'more powerful', or even 'as powerful,' regardless of point levels.

If you take the points for a 'more powerful' hunted, but try and neuter it by choosing a Hunted who is no match for you, that is a problem - which the GM is almost obligated to fix.

[ghost-angel]

I think it's a mistake to assume a Hunted has to appear in person.

Hunted 14- just means that the main villain is always going to be involved in some way, background or foreground. Not that they have to show up all the time.

A High Frequency just indicates a high level of involvement for the Hunted. Too many GMs, IMO, take it far to literally.

[Greywind]

I agree with that.

[tesuji]

I think it's a mistake to assume a Hunted has to appear in person.

Hunted 14- just means that the main villain is always going to be involved in some way, background or foreground. Not that they have to show up all the time.

A High Frequency just indicates a high level of involvement for the Hunted. Too many GMs, IMO, take it far to literally.

i tend to agree, especially in the case of mastermind villain types, with one caveat - the "involvement" has to be to the detriment of the player character.

just having "the evil gang robbing the bank were hired by dr boom" isn't imo sufficient to count as a hunted, because the situation would be no different or no easier for the pc if he ddn't have the humted.

Now, if the gang sent to rob the bank by dr boom also happen to be armed with the patented Dr Boom sonic grenades, which are particularly effective against our plucky hero, then that counts in my book.

I think too many gms tend to dismiss the hunted as not a disadvanrage but just as flavoring. I would not mind at all if disads were changed to flavoring mind you, but they aren't as the RAW stands now.

[Greywind]

Actually, having the characters find out that Dr. Boom hired them would be enough in my opinion. First rule of drama: start small and build.

[ghost-angel]

Actually, having the characters find out that Dr. Boom hired them would be enough in my opinion. First rule of drama: start small and build.

Indeed, this is simply set-up for Dr. Boom's later knowledge of the Players tactics in a fight.

The Player doesn't have to know the Hunted is involved all the time. But the GM needs to know to weave it into the campaign.

[tesuji]

Actually, having the characters find out that Dr. Boom hired them would be enough in my opinion. First rule of drama: start small and build.


I could see this provided the character only got the hunted at the -5 pts level for intentions or a watched. but if they took the full value for intends to kill etc, then just knowing their hunted had something to do with a scenario wouldn't imo count as an appearance in my game.

A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isnt worth points.

they took the points, which means they should be disadvantaged by that. if my villain disadvantages them less frequently, because i count "watching them fight" as an occurance, then when they do finally fight it should be much much worse.

for instance - if i have one hunted at 11- listed as as powerful who is a simple kind of brute force guy - nothing fancy he just shows up - then say five scenarios out of ten he should be ther punching away with his hunted status putting him at an advantage due to whatever circumstances i apply.

But if i have a more mastermind type (same pts) who "shows up" five times in ten but i decide to be sophisticated and have him only appear once and be "watching" four times, then i need to make sure that ONE TIME is really really disadvantaging for the character or i have not played these two hunted equally. Each "watch" has to gain him a stronger advantage for the actual appearance.

Again, if/when disadvantages change from disad to plot hook, and are costed not based on disadvantage, that can change.

[ghost-angel]

Heh, you're essnetially providing a perfect example of what I mean by taking Disad's too literally.

[BobGreenwade]

I'd also suggest that most of the general principles being discussed for Hunted could also be applied to DNPC.

[tesuji]

Heh, you're essnetially providing a perfect example of what I mean by taking Disad's too literally.

nope. but you are providing a perfect example of what i mean when i say disadvantages should be changed to plot hooks, both in name and in mechanics. if the raw is not used in practice in favor of a different approach, then the raw should be changed to that approach (assumes widespread of course.)

:-)

[tesuji]

I'd also suggest that most of the general principles being discussed for Hunted could also be applied to DNPC.

agreed... tho they apply almost to any disadvantage. A vulnerability to green kryptonite could be an issue even if GK doesn't appear. A fake grre glowing rock can disuade the hero from approaching, influence his target choices, etc.

but in essence, the value of "plot hook" ought to be based on frequency that it makes things more interesting and definitely not on "weight of penalty".

[ghost-angel]

nope. but you are providing a perfect example of what i mean when i say disadvantages should be changed to plot hooks, both in name and in mechanics. if the raw is not used in practice in favor of a different approach, then the raw should be changed to that approach (assumes widespread of course.)

:-)

What IS the RAW? hmm?

Does 14- mean they appear every game session? subplot? story arc? Overall Reaching Storyline? Campaign Premise?

Are they supposed to Kill them every encounter? Or is this a goal to work towards as a Story Arc? Or is this a Campaign Level goal of the Hunted?

The book doesn't outline this does it?

14- means that on a 14- or less on 3D6 the Hunted is involved somehow.
If the Hunted's intent is to Kill how much are they supposed to work towards that any given moment? Or should they be setting up for a kill later instead of throwing bombs around?

The book doesn't outline that either.

No - I think it's your premise that is deeply flawed. Not mine. They're fine as they are. Whether they called them Disadvantages or Plot Hooks or Froonblats. The book simply does not get involved in the details.

A Hunted of 8- will be involved more often than a Hunted of 14- by the odds, but that involvement is, and should be, left up to the GM dealing with their campaign.

[Balabanto]

I think that the issue of involvement is less important than the fact that there are 5-6 people around a table. In general, for this reason, I have a tendancy to disallow any hunted that's above an 8-.

Here's why.

Even if the campaign villain shows up on an 8-, chances are, he'll show up on like a 14-, because he's hunting everyone on the team.

That means that if you allow other Hunteds to be taken on more than 8-, that character's plot can DOMINATE the campaign, and everyone else feels slighted. This isn't fun or funny. Players get mad at each other. "Why does so and so's hunted seem more prevalent than mine? Why does so and so always get to be the star? And so on."

Part of running a game is being fair to everyone. Quite frankly, I think they should eliminate Hunted, 14-. It's fine for villains to be hunted by someone on a 14-, but really, even an 11-, the hunted shows up way too much for my liking. It makes telling stories REALLY difficult. In some campaigns (A GI Joe style campaign, where your PC's are UNTIL and the enemies are ALWAYS VIPER agents) this is okay, but really, an 11- means that hunted is going to show up 60 percent of the time. That's too much.

This also means that the GM can't run any plots that have nothing to do with the main plot, everything revolves around that 11- hunted.

The Hunted Disad, in my opinion, is not "Group friendly." It's only individual character friendly, and I'll stand by that.

[Netzilla]

What IS the RAW? hmm?

Does 14- mean they appear every game session? subplot? story arc? Overall Reaching Storyline? Campaign Premise?

RAW it's per game session. Check 5ER pg 335, second paragraph under "Hunter Frequency"


Are they supposed to Kill them every encounter? Or is this a goal to work towards as a Story Arc? Or is this a Campaign Level goal of the Hunted?That's broadly covered under "Hunter Intentions" on the same page. Unfortunately, rules-wise there's not a lot of granularity her. You've just got Harm/Kill or Watch. However, it seems to me that if the Hunter's intent is to harm or kill, their appearance means that they'll be doing something to harm or kill the target (tip off the bad guys as to weaknesses, smear him in a press interview, frame him for some crime or another, outright attack him, etc).


The book doesn't outline this does it?See above.


14- means that on a 14- or less on 3D6 the Hunted is involved somehow.
If the Hunted's intent is to Kill how much are they supposed to work towards that any given moment? Or should they be setting up for a kill later instead of throwing bombs around?

Intelligence gathering is an option, however the Hunted description pretty strongly suggests that the Hunter already knows the target and aside from being Watched, direct involvement (i.e. "screen time") is pretty strongly implied.


The book doesn't outline that either.

No - I think it's your premise that is deeply flawed. Not mine. They're fine as they are. Whether they called them Disadvantages or Plot Hooks or Froonblats. The book simply does not get involved in the details.

A Hunted of 8- will be involved more often than a Hunted of 14- by the odds, but that involvement is, and should be, left up to the GM dealing with their campaign.

[ghost-angel]

Huh, never noticed that before. Obviously I stand corrected.

Then we don't need to change Disads. We just need to fiddle with what Frequency means. I suggest removing the "per session" because that assumes that each session is a little self contained story of sorts. I've never been in a game that works that way.

I suggest that Frequency be rolled per Adventure.

[tesuji]

What IS the RAW? hmm?

Does 14- mean they appear every game session? subplot? story arc? Overall Reaching Storyline? Campaign Premise?

Are they supposed to Kill them every encounter? Or is this a goal to work towards as a Story Arc? Or is this a Campaign Level goal of the Hunted?

The book doesn't outline this does it?

14- means that on a 14- or less on 3D6 the Hunted is involved somehow.
If the Hunted's intent is to Kill how much are they supposed to work towards that any given moment? Or should they be setting up for a kill later instead of throwing bombs around?

The book doesn't outline that either.

No - I think it's your premise that is deeply flawed. Not mine. They're fine as they are. Whether they called them Disadvantages or Plot Hooks or Froonblats. The book simply does not get involved in the details.

A Hunted of 8- will be involved more often than a Hunted of 14- by the odds, but that involvement is, and should be, left up to the GM dealing with their campaign.


if by "outline" you mean "describe in explicit detail" then no the book does not define those that well. That doesn't mean that they are fine as they are.

basically, you are given points based on these very things these very aspects - how often do they appear? how bad are their intentions, etc. So leaving all those very details up to "gm" to ascribe and then also adopting an attidde of "its not defined so anything goes" makes the initial assignments seem silly.

Why take 8- watched for less points if my 14- wants to kill me might just be watching me for a while?

my view is simple - the values the PLAYER CHOOSES and I APPROVE represent the basic "even scenario" level of involvement. If we both aggred on 11- appearance, AS POWERFUL and WANTS TO MINORLY HURT, then thats the normal level of event one can expect from this trait.

Now i can certainly give you a few instances where this is a "watched" like any good mastermind would, but these should be counterbalance by an equitable number of MORE POWERFUL (wherein he uses what he learned from the watched) etc. other options like several watched leading to a particularly nasty tries to p-ernamently harm are also possible.

but basically one light encounter should feed another heavy encounter.

Which seems different from what i am hearing from you which seems to be just wrapping the hunted's name onto "the scene we have tonight" giving a "no real impact" event as an occurance of the hunted.

that seems very unfair to the guy who took vulnerability to fire for the same points because when he encounters fire as a problem it doesn't just watch him several times and hurt him the next.

given that 1.5xstun from fire is 10 pts at common iirc and thats i think than 11- as powerful only wants to harm a little it really seems unfair to have the hunted be an observer and count that vs the frequency.

or would you count "the fight takes place in a house with a fireplace" as an occurance against the frequency of the vuln vs fire too if it played no role?

Thats where i think the mechanics are flawed and why specifically disadvantages do not work just fine. Charging based on severity of disadvantage should lead the gm to treat them that way when in fact you seem to think they work better when used as flavoring.

I agree completely that many gms if not most use these as plot hooks and flavor and i have known many a player who have been taught to think of them as automatic free things you have to write down and not as disadvantages...

and i would love it if the rules RAW actually reflected the rules as played.

which is why i bring it up here, for 6th ed.

changing the name is one step.
but chaninging the mechanics away from valuing disadvantage is also needed.

[tesuji]

This also means that the GM can't run any plots that have nothing to do with the main plot, everything revolves around that 11- hunted.

The Hunted Disad, in my opinion, is not "Group friendly." It's only individual character friendly, and I'll stand by that.

IMO the frequency issue should be reatated as less random and more frequency.

i personally prefer "how many sessions in ten should this occur?" and costing based on that.

First i think when people sit down and think that question thru, most of the times they will answer "one maybe two" as they dont think "hey lets let it be every other session about this" because that will sound boringly repetitive.

compare to now ehere "11-" is very commonly chosen.

also i would have a limit on the "total times in ten session" these can be chosen on a per character basis. A character with say three disads, two at 2 and one at 6 has basically said he wants one problem every session in play, never having a "normal villain day".

A guy who has twenty totals is saying give me two problems every session... etc...

The acceptable number of "bad things" could vary by genre. those games running streetlevel angst ridden heroes haunted with their past might well be fine with permitting "20 pt character" where each character can deine "twenty sessions in ten worth of problems" but a more light hearted golden age might be better off with a limit of 3 per character making more of the episodes about "new business" instead of "old problems".

but definitely lets simplify the dialog... i mean in my book a hunted 11- is 62% and thats making it not a light pt middle of the road thing... doc oct doesn get after spidye in 62% of his issues, thank god. if he did we would all be switching to a more diverse comic. :-)

[Hugh Neilson]

Huh, never noticed that before. Obviously I stand corrected.

Then we don't need to change Disads. We just need to fiddle with what Frequency means. I suggest removing the "per session" because that assumes that each session is a little self contained story of sorts. I've never been in a game that works that way.

I suggest that Frequency be rolled per Adventure.

I also dislike the "per game session" term. Some groups play for three hours in an evening. Others might start at noon and play into the wee hours of the morning. I've done both at various times. That first group's Hunteds would show up 5 times as much as the second group's.

I don't let the dice dictate anything else in my games. Why should I let them dictate my use of disadvantages?

[Greywind]

I use the frequency as a guide.

Same as I use the rule book. As a guide.

Bottom line is, and always will be, having fun as group. If something stops being fun or interferes with the fun, it has to change.

[Chris Goodwin]

The 8-/11-/14- progression is left over from 3rd Edition. Back in those days, the "rolled" Disadvantages came in those flavors, as did Activation Roll. With 4th Edition came the in between Activation Rolls, but nothing else in the rest of the system was changed to match. It might be time to address that; change the standard Disadvantage progression to 8-/10-/12-/14-, yielding probabilities of 25.9%, 50%, 74.1%, and 90.7%, instead of 25.9%, 62.5%, and 90.7%. It gives us four possibilities instead of three, and a more even progression (the first three are in approximately 25% intervals).

[Chris Goodwin]

Alternately, it might be time to remove dice rolls entirely from Disadvantages. Psych Limit, Physical Limit, and Distinctive Features are all GM-driven, and we don't have any problems with those. Why not the same with Reputation, Social Limitation, and .... Berserk might be better left as is, or maybe make it a modifer to Psych Limit. I do think it might be better to have four frequency divisions than three, but I'm not wedded to the idea.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'm once again going to advocate that the 'plot hook' type of Disadvantages like Hunted or Secret Identity don't give any points up front, but instead give 'hero points' whenever they come into play. This means no worrying about frequency, either.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Dislike that idea as characters can scale out of proportion easily in Hero.

[steamteck]

I'm once again going to advocate that the 'plot hook' type of Disadvantages like Hunted or Secret Identity don't give any points up front, but instead give 'hero points' whenever they come into play. This means no worrying about frequency, either.

- Klaus
And once again I'm going to say the way it works now is just perfect for my tastes. I love the character points for disadvantages setup.:D

[Vulcan]

I'm once again going to advocate that the 'plot hook' type of Disadvantages like Hunted or Secret Identity don't give any points up front, but instead give 'hero points' whenever they come into play. This means no worrying about frequency, either.

- Klaus

I see lots of characters without any 'plot hooks' in our future...

Besides, I don't like Hero Points. They mess with the 'DCV as defense' concept far too much - if you can blow 3 Hero Points to gain a +3 bonus to hit, well, most of the 'DCV as Defense' character's defenses go away! :nonp:

The only balance against characters with High DEF would be to allow Hero Points to result in something like 2d6 extra damage... or Drain DEF away...

[BobGreenwade]

The 8-/11-/14- progression is left over from 3rd Edition. Back in those days, the "rolled" Disadvantages came in those flavors, as did Activation Roll. With 4th Edition came the in between Activation Rolls, but nothing else in the rest of the system was changed to match. It might be time to address that; change the standard Disadvantage progression to 8-/10-/12-/14-, yielding probabilities of 25.9%, 50%, 74.1%, and 90.7%, instead of 25.9%, 62.5%, and 90.7%. It gives us four possibilities instead of three, and a more even progression (the first three are in approximately 25% intervals).I'd just change the standard Disadvantage progression to (more or less) match the Activation Roll chart, if not actually use it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Cross Posting again.


Anyway, should Daredevil get points for a blindness Disadvantage? Well, is he as effective as someone would be who had both his senses and normal sight? When you've basically taken the points in something innate and transferred them into an ability that is about equivalent but different, do you essentially have to pay double (because you don't get anything from not having that innate trait), or do we violate our sacred rule of a Disadvantage having to be disadvantageous (with a value proportional to its disadvantageousnessnessousness)?

I wish I had a good answer, myself. It seems half an accounting thing and half a sacred, inviolable meta-rule. :ugly:

I think the meta rule is wrong. Daredevil paid the points for the compensating advantages. He should get the points for the ability he has lost.

Let's take another example. A character cannot walk - he can only crawl along the ground. He can, however, fly. So he buys 10" Flight, and sells back 5" Running. Why did he get full points for selling back his running? He's not really disadvantaged - he'll fly instead. ANSWER: Because it's a sellback instead of a disadvantage.

I'd like to see some consistency. Either the loss of abilities one gets by default should always be a sellback (Flying Worm can trade running for flight, and Daredevil can trade sight for radar) or they should always be disadvantages (DD buys the radar and gets a disad for Blind; FW pays for flight and gets a disad for -5" running). The current mix & match system creates inequities.

Reducing the level of disad because the character has paid full points (and no one ever suggests DD get a discount on Radar Sense) for compensating abilities exacerbates the inequity.

[Off to 6e for some cross posting...]

[PhilFleischmann]

You're quite correct. That's sort of what Disadvantages are already - negative powers, or power sell-backs. Why not let them be treated that way, if and when it's useful to do so. More tools in the toolbox.

Gary Gygax is dead, but his legacy lives on in games that say, "You can't do this because someone might abuse it," rather than, "This can be useful in some games, so you can do it, but dont abuse it."

[Lucius]

And once again I'm going to say the way it works now is just perfect for my tastes. I love the character points for disadvantages setup.:D

Can we agree to agree about this?

Lucius Alexander

Custom Disadvantage: Palindromedary

[ghost-angel]

I think, I'd actually recommend not changing the current system at all, as some have said it's great for what it does.

That it's one of those types of methods that are easier to remove and workaround when a GM wants to than to implement from the ground up if the GM wanted them in.

Sometimes it's easier to just add some Optional Rules to remove than try and replace an already decent working method.

[steamteck]

Can we agree to agree about this?

Lucius Alexander

Custom Disadvantage: Palindromedary

I agree we should agree to agree on this.:D

[dsatow]

I've been skimming over this thread and been agreeing and disagreeing with conversations. Here are some conclusions I've come up with IMHO

1) Disadvantages were designed in the game as per player character. The point system was designed to pay for that player's vision of the character and not for the team they were joining. When you have 4-6 players, the disadvantages do not mesh as well because when constructing the character, the players do not think about team so much as pc.
Suggested course of action: It has been said before but not really stressed in the book(heck I don't even do it much), that there can be team disadvantages. Disadvantages assigned to the whole team rather than personal. Example: The Extraordinary Men each have 75 points of team disads. These disads include Hunted by Magenta, Hunted by The Guards, distinctive feature Extraordinary, and Social Lim: Extraordinary. Beyond this, each character can have their own issues. Ex: Wolfie has Hunted by Tigertooth, haunted by past, etc. Team disadvantages reduces the need for players to come up with point paying disadvantages, still allow for personal creation disadvantages, and hopefully eliminates the "so many hunteds" problem for the team/GM.

2) Numerical frequencies for role playing in this system where most everything can be counted and measured is not good. It encourages the belief or the expectation that said event or action will occur on that frequency. Furthermore, if the event or action does not occur at that particular frequency, then there is rumblings that the PC "got too many/little points" for the disadvantage.
Suggested Course of action: Change from numerics to words uncommon, common, very common. It is already used in other parts of the system and should not cause undue distress in current gamers. This frees the disadvantage to whatever is most efficient for the GM

[Greywind]

And any disadvantages that accrue during the course of play, while being disadvantages, do not gain the characters points. The points players have should reflect their past. What got them to this point.

Most games, when they start up, the characters, in my experience, do not readily know everyone. Some few may have common backgrounds and be friends, but that doesn't hold to all of the characters or the player's wishes.

Team disadvantages are fine if you don't want each character to have their own little problems, but what happens when you have someone that comes along, built their character using full disads and joins the team? They are still bound by the team disads, but they get no recompense for their own build.

[AnotherSkip]

Yeah, like a Gm is going to complain about a player having too many disads....

:eg:

[dsatow]

I seriously doubt that if you state by joining this team you will have X disads before they create a character, there will be any complaints. The only complications come when an existing character from one team joins another team.

At which point, the GM can either switch out the disads or give it as uncompensated additional disadvantages.

In HDv3, this could easily be simulated with the Custom Disadvantage: Team Disadvantages where the Points are from the team they are associated with.

[ghost-angel]

Don't even need that. Just allow everyone to take the same Disad at the same level and make a note which Team it applies to if there's an issue.

[Greywind]

I seriously doubt that if you state by joining this team you will have X disads before they create a character, there will be any complaints. The only complications come when an existing character from one team joins another team.

At which point, the GM can either switch out the disads or give it as uncompensated additional disadvantages.

In HDv3, this could easily be simulated with the Custom Disadvantage: Team Disadvantages where the Points are from the team they are associated with.Which does absolutely nothing, if the character concept has nothing to do with that team.

Spider-Man became an Avenger, thereby gaining all the benefits of being an Avenger, and picking up the team disads inherent to being a member.

His own disads didn't go away.

[AnotherSkip]

Seems to indicate that Spidey 'gets what he pays for' to me.

X team has disads and advantages, they may or may not balance out but the advantages are good enough for old Spidey (unlike say X-Men which he has declined joining on a few occasions)

[Greywind]

Only because he wasn't in the family tree...

[ghost-angel]

The second approach is to significantly curtail the amount of Disadvantage points required. Again to use 5E totals, a Standard Superhero (currently built on 200 base points + 150 Disadvantage points) might instead be built on 300 + 50. That way there’s room to take some Disadvantages, but no need to strain things to take Disadvantages that aren’t really “central” to the character’s concept.

Along similar lines, if we keep some relationship between Disadvantages and points, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to express the relationship in a different fashion. Instead of saying, “You take Disadvantages and you get points for them,” would it get the point of Disadvantages across better to say, “You have 100 points to spend on Complications for your character that you want the GM to incorporate into the game.” In effect this emphasizes the *positive* aspect of Disadvantages as a character development tool.

The more I think about it the more I like this solution the best.

I like the Disadvantage System (renaming them to Complications, Background Points or something more positive is a good idea) as it works.

Why not make the Points from Disadvantages be 25% of the Total Character Points - a 350 Superhero would only need 85 Points of Disads (I rounded down); a 100 Point Heroic would only need 25 Points.

One or two important Disads come to light, that both the GM and Player can focus on.

And I'd add a section about Trading Out as time goes on, when a Disad applies less due to story or character growth, but another aspect comes to light instead.

I might've said some or all of this before, I can't remember and am too lazy to go look right now (actually, I'm reading Urban Fantasy Hero and the thought struck me as I was reading along and I want to get back to the book instead of look for old posts).

[AnotherSkip]

Only because he wasn't in the family tree...

'normal' humans bit by (either genetically or radiation)altered spiders don't turn into powered individuals.

Spidey is an Anomalous human who was altered to bring out his latent abilities, thus no matter how hard his press agents work he still is in the mutant family Tree. :)

it also doesn't change the fact that he has been offered the position and he refused.

Frankly i think the X-Men need some non-mutant superheroes on their team to show they arent racist pigs :D.

[Hugh Neilson]

Frankly i think the X-Men need some non-mutant superheroes on their team to show they arent racist pigs :D.

Well, maybe Ink will stick around. And there was that quasi-Sentinel a few years ago. Mimic was an altered human (mind you, so is Spidey), and joined back around #27, IIRC, so the first member added to the X-Men was a non-mutant.

[PS: This thread has drifted significantly...Sorry, Steve!]

[Greywind]

'normal' humans bit by (either genetically or radiation)altered spiders don't turn into powered individuals.

Spidey is an Anomalous human who was altered to bring out his latent abilities, thus no matter how hard his press agents work he still is in the mutant family Tree. :)

it also doesn't change the fact that he has been offered the position and he refused.

Frankly i think the X-Men need some non-mutant superheroes on their team to show they arent racist pigs :D.
Marvel differentiates between "mutants" and "mutates". Fantastic Four are all mutates whereas Franklin is a mutant because of his parents.

[steamteck]

The more I think about it the more I like this solution the best.

I like the Disadvantage System (renaming them to Complications, Background Points or something more positive is a good idea) as it works.

Why not make the Points from Disadvantages be 25% of the Total Character Points - a 350 Superhero would only need 85 Points of Disads (I rounded down); a 100 Point Heroic would only need 25 Points.

One or two important Disads come to light, that both the GM and Player can focus on.

And I'd add a section about Trading Out as time goes on, when a Disad applies less due to story or character growth, but another aspect comes to light instead.

I might've said some or all of this before, I can't remember and am too lazy to go look right now (actually, I'm reading Urban Fantasy Hero and the thought struck me as I was reading along and I want to get back to the book instead of look for old posts).


I could NEVER make a complete rounded character with only that little but some people think that's too much perhaps a more flexible take on the amount able to be taken is needed.

IMO most official builds I've seen the psychological limits are way too shallow. to the point I have to do a lot of reworking if I want t use them. Stuff that should be in the build is in the flavor text.

I know I have a different take on this but that's the point. I think there should be a range of disadvantage percentage discussed myself.

[ghost-angel]

I don't think you need Disad's to make a well rounded character personally. The Disad's - at least as I see and use them - are to Hilight the Really Important Stuff.

[AnotherSkip]

Hopefully this is a new use for Activation Roll, simulating HIt locations.

I Just built this I think people can see how it could be useful for introducing HIt locations to a campaign that doesn't typically use them.

The Heart of the Matter: Xd6, Succor to attacks, Trigger (+1/4) (37), Charges (16, +0), Only to simulate hit locations (-1/2), Activation Roll (locations roll, -1),

[ideasmith]

Hopefully this is a new use for Activation Roll, simulating HIt locations.

I Just built this I think people can see how it could be useful for introducing HIt locations to a campaign that doesn't typically use them.

The Heart of the Matter: Xd6, Succor to attacks, Trigger (+1/4) (37), Charges (16, +0), Only to simulate hit locations (-1/2), Activation Roll (locations roll, -1),


If using Active Point limits or DC limits, the question of how this counts towards such limits comes up.

[ideasmith]

I don't think you need Disad's to make a well rounded character personally. The Disad's - at least as I see and use them - are to Hilight the Really Important Stuff.

"Really Important Stuff", would, in my interpretation, equate to 'Stuff the Player Wants the GM to Highlight'.

[PapayaWhip]

The 8-/11-/14- progression is left over from 3rd Edition. Back in those days, the "rolled" Disadvantages came in those flavors, as did Activation Roll. With 4th Edition came the in between Activation Rolls, but nothing else in the rest of the system was changed to match. It might be time to address that; change the standard Disadvantage progression to 8-/10-/12-/14-, yielding probabilities of 25.9%, 50%, 74.1%, and 90.7%, instead of 25.9%, 62.5%, and 90.7%. It gives us four possibilities instead of three, and a more even progression (the first three are in approximately 25% intervals).Oh my goodness, yes! Hunteds, Berserks, and DNPCs should ALL follow a 25-50-75-90 progression!

I played in a campaign where the House Rule was that characters had 100 points in Disadvantages instead of 150. The catch was that we could not have a DNPC or Hunted more than 8-, except for the main 11- Hunted. The GM had about 10 people coming in and out of the campaign when they could make it, so it made it easier on both sides of the table. No need to see 6 DNPCs and 7 Hunteds showing up at the same time. Then again, the NPCs didn't always show up in person. They sometimes left calling cards, flowers, voice messages, listening devices (bugs), or Twinkie wrappers (okay, not the last one) to show that we Just missed them.

[Greywind]

Just because a Hunted puts in an appearance, doesn't necessarily follow that the players saw or know of it.

[PhilFleischmann]

The 8-/11-/14- progression is left over from 3rd Edition. Back in those days, the "rolled" Disadvantages came in those flavors, as did Activation Roll. With 4th Edition came the in between Activation Rolls, but nothing else in the rest of the system was changed to match. It might be time to address that; change the standard Disadvantage progression to 8-/10-/12-/14-, yielding probabilities of 25.9%, 50%, 74.1%, and 90.7%, instead of 25.9%, 62.5%, and 90.7%. It gives us four possibilities instead of three, and a more even progression (the first three are in approximately 25% intervals).


Oh my goodness, yes! Hunteds, Berserks, and DNPCs should ALL follow a 25-50-75-90 progression!
What's so special about those numbers? Why not allow 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-, 13-, 14-? Four possibilities is an improvement over three, but isn't seven even better? Hooray for granularity!

Maybe even 7- and 6-. Maybe even 15- and 16-.

[Vondy]

I say leave it mostly untouched, but then publish The Ultimate Disadvantage (ThUD).

All the alternate disad plug-ins can go there. ;)

Incidentally, I use an alternate system. It works very well. I prefer it greatly. I don't necessarily think the default disad module needs to be changed much.

[tesuji]

Just because a Hunted puts in an appearance, doesn't necessarily follow that the players saw or know of it.

its basically easy, possibly even trivial, to come up with scene after scene after scene where we can say "the hunted appeared" yet where the hunted either had so little impact or was so far "behind the scenes" that he wasn't noticed... and we can use all those "no show appearances" (while the pcs fought foxbat their hunted stole something special they never knew about... etc etc etc...) to trump up "we use the frequencies in the book" without having them actually appear that often and disrupt stories...

but instead why not have the numbers we actually use for "appearances" be more in line with actual "appearances" in the first place?

the end run around the numbers isn't necessary if we set the numbers right in the first place. Then we dont have to spend a lot of time concocting off stage scenes they never see... right? We can focus on scenes they see and, holy cow, even play in!

I would much rather have my hunteds actually appear as often as i and the gm agreed they did, rather than have my guy playing one game while my hunteds are off stage playing another.

After all, i wrote them down BECAUSE i want them in play, right, not somewhere else doing something else.

:-)

[PhilFleischmann]

Another possibility is to let the various Disads have higher point values - but actually use them strictly by the book! This wouldn't necessarily apply to all of the Disads, but to some of them, like Hunted.

For example, we could double the value of Hunted, so that an As Powerful enemy Hunting on an 8- is worth 20 points instead of 10. But then the GM agrees to actually make that roll every time, and if it comes up, the hunter will actually have some significant role in making life difficult for the character. It doesn't necessarily have to involve direct combat, but it does have to be significant. Even if the character isn't aware of the Hunter's involvement, the Hunter is behind the scenes somewhere, but not so far behind the scenes that it's mostly insignificant.

This way, players won't need to take Hunteds with high rolls, which could interfere with the GM's story line. 8 or less is already more than 25% of the time. How many arch-nemeses appear in comic books more than 1/4 of the time? Do the Fantastic Four fight Doctor Doom one out of every four issues?

As a side benefit, the increased value allows for more indermediate values for increased granularity. So if a AsPow, 8- is worth 20 points, an AsPow 7- (more than 16%) might be worth 15, and an AsPow 6- (more than 9%) could be worth 10. Of course, doubling the current value isnt the only possible answer. It could be a modified chart:


Less Powerful 5
Slightly Less Powerful 10
As Powerful 15
Slightly More Powerful 20
More Powerful 25
Non-Combat Influence 5
Very Significant NCI 10
Watching Only -10
Mildly Punish -5
Harshly Punish -0
No-limit Punishment +5
Limited Area -5
Very Limited Area -10
PC is Easy to Find/Public ID +5
Appears on 5- +0
6- +5
7- +10
8- +15
9- +20
10- +25
These are just some pidooma numbers, of course. As are these:

"As Powerful" means generally within 10% of the PC's total Character Points.
"Slightly Less/Slightly More" would mean up to -20% or +20% of the PCs character points.
"Less/More Powerful" would be more than 20% difference in cp total.
"Very Significant NCI" would mean something beyond just messing with the PC's reputation, but would mean capable of costing the PC his livelihood, of something like that.
"No Limit Punishment" would mean that the PC's friends, family, associates, workplace, home, city, country, whatever, are all fair game to the Hunter.
A "Very Limited Area" might be a single city or neighborhood.

The values for the frequencies that I've give above might be a little bit too high, but it should be noted that the various chances to appear are appropriate. 5- is just under 1 in 20 - which might be a bit too seldom for most Hunteds, but works for a minor villain.

[Greywind]

its basically easy, possibly even trivial, to come up with scene after scene after scene where we can say "the hunted appeared" yet where the hunted either had so little impact or was so far "behind the scenes" that he wasn't noticed... and we can use all those "no show appearances" (while the pcs fought foxbat their hunted stole something special they never knew about... etc etc etc...) to trump up "we use the frequencies in the book" without having them actually appear that often and disrupt stories...

but instead why not have the numbers we actually use for "appearances" be more in line with actual "appearances" in the first place?

the end run around the numbers isn't necessary if we set the numbers right in the first place. Then we dont have to spend a lot of time concocting off stage scenes they never see... right? We can focus on scenes they see and, holy cow, even play in!

I would much rather have my hunteds actually appear as often as i and the gm agreed they did, rather than have my guy playing one game while my hunteds are off stage playing another.

After all, i wrote them down BECAUSE i want them in play, right, not somewhere else doing something else.

:-)
First rule of great drama: Start small and build.

Of course you want your Hunteds to come into play. So do the other five players. What? You don't share Hunteds? Well, now we need to break things down so that each Hunted that a character has sees some daylight.

So, we have 6 characters with 2 Hunteds each. The group only gets together for about 4 hours every other weekend...

How much time should each Hunted get? How much time should each character get?

By having the Hunteds involved, out of sight, indicates their plans are proceeding to the point where the character will become aware. Maybe a character other than THE character gets information, but files it away as trivial because he isn't aware of THE character's interaction with the Hunter. There are always options.

[Vondy]

Another possibility is to let the various Disads have higher point values - but actually use them strictly by the book!

You know, I stopped letting random die rolls (on encounter charts) determine the course of gaming sessions when I was twelve. Why would I want to go back to that? No, really, its a serious question. Hunteds are great plot hooks. They are great for character back story. But even if I'm running a solo game (let alone a game with multiple players and scads of hunteds) I'm going to make a disciplined, deliberate decision in terms of when the best time for a hunted to come into play. A game-master has an obligation to provide the outline of a good story for his players to wreak havoc upon and to juggle focus and stage time between them fairly. Hunted rolls interfere with those obligations and slavish adherence to them would be nothing but disruptive. The disadvantages are there to serve the game, not to run it. The die roll is a throwback to the primordial late seventies early eighties era mechanics. It was great when I was ten and still fumbling in the dark. That was twenty-six years ago. I no longer fumble. I walk in the light. It must go.

[Vondy]

First rule of great drama: Start small and build.

Of course you want your Hunteds to come into play. So do the other five players. What? You don't share Hunteds? Well, now we need to break things down so that each Hunted that a character has sees some daylight.

So, we have 6 characters with 2 Hunteds each. The group only gets together for about 4 hours every other weekend...

How much time should each Hunted get? How much time should each character get?

By having the Hunteds involved, out of sight, indicates their plans are proceeding to the point where the character will become aware. Maybe a character other than THE character gets information, but files it away as trivial because he isn't aware of THE character's interaction with the Hunter. There are always options.


All of which is great. But it doesn't address the question: why do I need a die roll to tell me how or when to do this? A good game-master knows he needs to be foreshadowing (and overlapping) plots, juggling sub-plots, and pushing some things forward and other things backward. That's the job when you have multiple players (or even an ongoing solo campaign). Doing it according to the randomness of die rolls instead of deliberately makes that job more difficult - and takes a good deal of the artistry out of the process of running a good game. It would be better to have it defined with a non-random descriptor.

A hunted at 14- or less will appear 90.74% of the time. That's not an individual character's hunted. That's an ongoing theme throughout the campaign, if not *the* campaign theme en toto. Start adding in multiple characters with hunteds like that and it becomes a joke (if you bother to make the rolls). Even with a group of six players and hunted rolls of 11- (62.5%) you end up with odds on at least one hunted showing up per session and will probably get 3-4. It simply isn't reasonable to expect people to run games that way. Nor is it reasonable to have that many overlapping plot elements in play at one time. The end result will just be a mess.

[Greywind]

Personally, I ignore the die rolls and use the numbers as a guide.

[Vondy]

Personally, I ignore the die rolls and use the numbers as a guide.

Also I.

[IndianaJoe3]

Personally, I ignore the die rolls and use the numbers as a guide.


Also I.

So, something like:
-5 Almost Never
+0 About 1/4 of the time
+5 About 1/2 the time
+10 About 3/4 of the time
+15 Almost all the time

(Sorry about the formatting. :help:)

[ajackson]

I'd pretty much like to remove hunted from 6e. In general, I dislike any disadvantage which does any of the following:

Causes significant problems for the entire party, rather than just the affected PC.
Forces the GM to spend a considerable amount of time adjudicating the disadvantage.
Grants the PC spotlight time when the disadvantage shows up, particularly if the spotlight time might give the PC an opportunity to look good.

is a problem disadvantage, and possibly even a net advantage for the player (as distinguished from the PC; spotlight time isn't really important to PCs, but for many players it's very important). Hunted has a tendency to violate (1), almost always violates (2), and has a tendency to violate (3). About the only types of 'hunted' that are actually tolerable are things like Hunted: J Jonah Jamesson.

[PhilFleischmann]

You know, I stopped letting random die rolls (on encounter charts) determine the course of gaming sessions when I was twelve.
That's fine. Do it how you like, I'm just saying that if a character has an 8- Hunted, it really should have some real impact approximately 25% of the time. Whether you want to use die rolls to determine this or not doesn't really matter. It's certainly within just about every genre for a hunter to not show up at all for quite a while, and then show up continuously for a while.

My point was that +10 points is a trifling amount for a Hunter that comes into play over 90% of the time! And GMs generally aren't going to want to figure out how to incorporate a PC's Hunted into 90% of their scenarios. Few hunteds should ever be more than 8-. And even 8- is quite significant, regardless of whether you roll it or choose it, as long as it actually is coming up close to 25.9% of the time.

[steamteck]

I'd pretty much like to remove hunted from 6e. In general, I dislike any disadvantage which does any of the following:

Causes significant problems for the entire party, rather than just the affected PC.
Forces the GM to spend a considerable amount of time adjudicating the disadvantage.
Grants the PC spotlight time when the disadvantage shows up, particularly if the spotlight time might give the PC an opportunity to look good.

is a problem disadvantage, and possibly even a net advantage for the player (as distinguished from the PC; spotlight time isn't really important to PCs, but for many players it's very important). Hunted has a tendency to violate (1), almost always violates (2), and has a tendency to violate (3). About the only types of 'hunted' that are actually tolerable are things like Hunted: J Jonah Jamesson.


I personally find them to be a very meat and potatoes disadvantage often very helpful in character development. Inigo Montoya form the princess bride for example. You ought to able to reverse it to hunting also. If you don't like to deal with them don't but to me they help enrichen the character.


I say that sort of thing lots on this board. Maybe I'm just a make lemonaide out of lemons guy. Seriously hunteds going would be another one of those nails in the coffin for 6th edition. Almost a deal breaker by itself.

[Vulcan]

So, something like:
-5 Almost Never
+0 About 1/4 of the time
+5 About 1/2 the time
+10 About 3/4 of the time
+15 Almost all the time

(Sorry about the formatting. :help:)

Looks good to me. :thumbup:

[Vulcan]

I'd pretty much like to remove hunted from 6e. In general, I dislike any disadvantage which does any of the following:

Causes significant problems for the entire party, rather than just the affected PC.
Forces the GM to spend a considerable amount of time adjudicating the disadvantage.
Grants the PC spotlight time when the disadvantage shows up, particularly if the spotlight time might give the PC an opportunity to look good.
is a problem disadvantage, and possibly even a net advantage for the player (as distinguished from the PC; spotlight time isn't really important to PCs, but for many players it's very important). Hunted has a tendency to violate (1), almost always violates (2), and has a tendency to violate (3). About the only types of 'hunted' that are actually tolerable are things like Hunted: J Jonah Jamesson.

On the other hand, Hunted is a genre trope over pretty much every common genre...

[ajackson]

I personally find them to be a very meat and potatoes disadvantage often very helpful in character development. Inigo Montoya form the princess bride for example.
That's not a hunted, that's psych-lim (track down the six-fingered man).

I have nothing against, as a GM, the player saying "Here's this guy who hates me. Please him as a villain". You'll just get zero points for it. I also have nothing against the player saying "My PC is hiding from the Mob". However, that isn't a hunted, that's a social limitation that limits your activity.

[ajackson]

On the other hand, Hunted is a genre trope over pretty much every common genre...
Hunted where one guy is hunted, and everyone else is ignored, is not a genre trope. If there's hunters involved, they're hunting everyone, and they're a campaign background issue, not a personal disad.

[steamteck]

That's not a hunted, that's psych-lim (track down the six-fingered man).



Well, the point is my players and I love our hunteds and would like them included. I really don't want things excluded because they conflict with certain GMing ,gaming styles when others find them really useful.

[Vulcan]

Hunted where one guy is hunted, and everyone else is ignored, is not a genre trope. If there's hunters involved, they're hunting everyone, and they're a campaign background issue, not a personal disad.

To each their own. I suspect we will just have to disagree on this one.;)

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'd pretty much like to remove hunted from 6e. In general, I dislike any disadvantage which does any of the following:

Causes significant problems for the entire party, rather than just the affected PC.
Forces the GM to spend a considerable amount of time adjudicating the disadvantage.
Grants the PC spotlight time when the disadvantage shows up, particularly if the spotlight time might give the PC an opportunity to look good.
is a problem disadvantage, and possibly even a net advantage for the player (as distinguished from the PC; spotlight time isn't really important to PCs, but for many players it's very important). Hunted has a tendency to violate (1), almost always violates (2), and has a tendency to violate (3). About the only types of 'hunted' that are actually tolerable are things like Hunted: J Jonah Jamesson.
Well put.

These are partly why I have suggested that this sort of background trait (complications that don't limit the character's abilities, just complicates life for him) shouldn't be Disadvantages, but rather zero-point traits that give the character Hero Points when they come into play.

This also fits well with how it works in comics. The Red Skull is Captain America's main adversary, but he has on occasion battled all of the Avengers. However, in these cases Cap plays a more central role than he usually does, because, y'know, Skully is his adversary. This is easily simulated by giving Cap's player a handful of extra Hero Points for the occasion.

If such a trait can be used to the character's advantage (e.g. if the character belongs to an organization that makes demands, but can also provide help), then the characters should pay a Hero Point in these cases.

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

So, something like:
-5 Almost Never
+0 About 1/4 of the time
+5 About 1/2 the time
+10 About 3/4 of the time
+15 Almost all the time

(Sorry about the formatting. :help:)I'd replace "Almost Never" with "Rarely," and I'd still include the rolls as a guide for a GM who's uncertain or needs a better numerical guide (5-, 8-, 11-, 14-, 17-), but otherwise this looks good.

I'd still rather have the Disadvantage costed for "all the time" and then apply an Activation Roll Limitation, but that's probably just me and one or two others who support the general idea of Limitations on Disadvantages.

[PhilFleischmann]

So, something like:
-5 Almost Never
+0 About 1/4 of the time
+5 About 1/2 the time
+10 About 3/4 of the time
+15 Almost all the time
That seems to me to be way too frequent, or way too few points. You almost never see a Hunter 3/4 of the time, or even 1/2 the time. More oppropriate for most genres would be:

-5 Rarely
+0 About 1/10 of the time
+5 About 1/5 of the time
+10 About 1/3 of the time
+15 About 1/2 of the time

Unless the Hunter is The Overarching Campaign Story Arc Arch-Villain (like say Sauron in LotR), you aren't going to see him more often than that.


If you don't like to deal with them don't but to me they help enrichen the character.
They also help to embiggen the character.


Hunted where one guy is hunted, and everyone else is ignored, is not a genre trope. If there's hunters involved, they're hunting everyone, and they're a campaign background issue, not a personal disad.
That's not true. Just about all the main superhero groups have members that have individual Hunteds. Individual JLA members have they're own Hunters, as do individual Avengers, X-Men, etc. Even the FF - the Yancy Street gang only bothers the Thing. Jabba only hunts Han. I'm sure there are many more examples.

[Greywind]

Hunted where one guy is hunted, and everyone else is ignored, is not a genre trope. If there's hunters involved, they're hunting everyone, and they're a campaign background issue, not a personal disad.Actually, it is. Everyone else falls into collateral damage. The only real issues where, say comic books come in, rarely do the writers drag something from Batman over to the JLA.


So, something like:
-5 Almost Never
+0 About 1/4 of the time
+5 About 1/2 the time
+10 About 3/4 of the time
+15 Almost all the time

(Sorry about the formatting. :help:)Roughly, but it is more of a mental juggle based on what has happened in the past, which characters had a moment, which villain fits in with what ideas I've got cooking in my mind.


That's not a hunted, that's psych-lim (track down the six-fingered man).

I have nothing against, as a GM, the player saying "Here's this guy who hates me. Please him as a villain". You'll just get zero points for it. I also have nothing against the player saying "My PC is hiding from the Mob". However, that isn't a hunted, that's a social limitation that limits your activity.I disagree. And if each group member has a hunted, all of a sudden there's a new group of villains. Or a bad case of "uh, Bob, Cat Whiskers came after me tonight." "Really? Your arch-nemesis blew up my limo an hour ago..."


I'd pretty much like to remove hunted from 6e. In general, I dislike any disadvantage which does any of the following:

Causes significant problems for the entire party, rather than just the affected PC.
Forces the GM to spend a considerable amount of time adjudicating the disadvantage.
Grants the PC spotlight time when the disadvantage shows up, particularly if the spotlight time might give the PC an opportunity to look good.

is a problem disadvantage, and possibly even a net advantage for the player (as distinguished from the PC; spotlight time isn't really important to PCs, but for many players it's very important). Hunted has a tendency to violate (1), almost always violates (2), and has a tendency to violate (3). About the only types of 'hunted' that are actually tolerable are things like Hunted: J Jonah Jamesson.Jameson wasn't a Hunted for Spider-Man. If you want to roll it into his disads, Jameson is just another member of the rogue's gallery.

Spider-Man was a psychological issue for Jameson. The annoyance was Jameson had money and the Bugle with which to persecute his psych issue. He was directly responsible for the Spider Slayers, The Fly and The Scorpion.

Hunteds can and sometimes should, cause problems for an entire group.

I rarely spend time adjudicating unless were in the middle of a game. I lay plots and see what flies.

Sometimes, depending on relative ability, the Hunted doesn't provide spotlight coverage, but is a minor nuisance that needs to be bypassed to get to what is important.

[ajackson]

I disagree. And if each group member has a hunted, all of a sudden there's a new group of villains. Or a bad case of "uh, Bob, Cat Whiskers came after me tonight." "Really? Your arch-nemesis blew up my limo an hour ago..."
The key issue as to whether 'hunted' is a legit disad is to ask yourself: am I going to balance the encounter as if the hunted wouldn't come into play, and then just add him as an extra problem, or am I going to reduce the rest of the encounter when the hunted shows up?

In the first place, having everyone's hunted pop up is certainly a legit disad, as it will typically turn 'hard fight' into 'heroes lose big-time'. In the second case, all the hunted is doing is providing some flavor for what likely encounters will look like.

Now, providing the GM with some suggestions in the form of "Here's villains I'd like to show up in adventures" is perfectly reasonable, but it's really not worth any points. My experience is that the GM will not generally decide to just add the hunted to the adventure -- he replaces some other element.

[Hugh Neilson]

They also help to embiggen the character.

It's a perfectly cromulant word!


The key issue as to whether 'hunted' is a legit disad is to ask yourself: am I going to balance the encounter as if the hunted wouldn't come into play, and then just add him as an extra problem, or am I going to reduce the rest of the encounter when the hunted shows up?

In the first place, having everyone's hunted pop up is certainly a legit disad, as it will typically turn 'hard fight' into 'heroes lose big-time'. In the second case, all the hunted is doing is providing some flavor for what likely encounters will look like.

Now, providing the GM with some suggestions in the form of "Here's villains I'd like to show up in adventures" is perfectly reasonable, but it's really not worth any points. My experience is that the GM will not generally decide to just add the hunted to the adventure -- he replaces some other element.

This holds water only if I also plan on turning any chance of victory in a serious combat into near-certain defeat with vulnerabilities, susceptibilities or even DNPC's. Other disadvantages need not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Why should Hunted? If the GM's goal from disadvantages is to screw over the players, then this type of disad usage seems appropriate, but I prefer to use disadvantages to enhance drama, not make the player/character suffer. To me, disadvantages are one of the means the players can collaborate with the GM in creating and populating the game world and enhance their connection to, and interactions with, that world.

[steamteck]

. My experience is that the GM will not generally decide to just add the hunted to the adventure -- he replaces some other element.


Or some crazy guys actually use them as the spark for the entire adventure. Or if we do use it to replace an element it deepens and richens the experience. We're all here to have the most fun, right.

My experience seems to be when someone on the boards say no one ever does something its standard procedure for us so I've learned to not take things like that for granted.

You can always not use them but I really really want them to remain myself ( Like COM level want to remain)

[steamteck]

It's a perfectly cromulant word!



This holds water only if I also plan on turning any chance of victory in a serious combat into near-certain defeat with vulnerabilities, susceptibilities or even DNPC's. Other disadvantages need not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Why should Hunted? If the GM's goal from disadvantages is to screw over the players, then this type of disad usage seems appropriate, but I prefer to use disadvantages to enhance drama, not make the player/character suffer. To me, disadvantages are one of the means the players can collaborate with the GM in creating and populating the game world and enhance their connection to, and interactions with, that world.


That's really good! Well said. I'll rep you when I can. Apparently Repped you too recently.

[Greywind]

Yeah. Me too...

[ajackson]

Or some crazy guys actually use them as the spark for the entire adventure. Or if we do use it to replace an element it deepens and richens the experience. We're all here to have the most fun, right.
Which gets back to "go ahead and have enemies, but you don't get any points for them".

[Tex Jones]

It's been years since I stoped fighting disadvantages! Now Almost every charater I create ends up with what I call ZERO point DA's adding to them as the Charcter Develops. This includes the NPC as well,

unluck rolled every time a waiter hands me a glass of Scotch?

to the simple "DON'T PANIC" from Hichikers Guide


Over Developed Sense of Asventure


These tell me more about how the charater was played.

Always willing to let a new plater start with two or three Mystery DA'a they'll get illed in. The trick of a good GM is hup around the DA's weaving them into the Story line in a way that you almost look forward to your night in the hot seat.

Giving players a NPC to run if his PC is out of action for the night. exps going to both the npc and pc.Playing a blind eye to the other PC's DA's can be a big challenge for a new player keeping good notes on what a NPC has learned, seen, and collected on the PC's Becomes a must.

But at that level requires writing out the story line and battles from several points of view. many of my side bars of thought trying to answer the good old

Who is in cgarge?

Is this Connected?

What's Next?

If you have a team of five members for every clue and riddle they should have at leAST FIVE thoughts for each major item in the ryddly

PSL belives the gods are real

doesn't belive in evil

dosen't belive in hell

For it has been said all it takr for evil to win is for a good man to do nothing.

THE Identifying Quote can often be writen and broken down into at least two or there DA's If it's done right I give out enough extra exps on role playing
the DA most of my players begin to look at them as another power to be used correctly which is in a way wgat they are!


TEX Jones (wILL GO ON A ADVENTURE AT THE DROP OF A HAT
AND CARRIES HIS OWN HAT JUST IN CASE)

aka The Great Sage of the Northern Frozen Wasteland
Good Advice Cheap
Bad Advice Free

[Tex Jones]

It's a perfectly cromulant word!



This holds water only if I also plan on turning any chance of victory in a serious combat into near-certain defeat with vulnerabilities, susceptibilities or even DNPC's. Other disadvantages need not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Why should Hunted? If the GM's goal from disadvantages is to screw over the players, then this type of disad usage seems appropriate, but I prefer to use disadvantages to enhance drama, not make the player/character suffer. To me, disadvantages are one of the means the players can collaborate with the GM in creating and populating the game world and enhance their connection to, and interactions with, that world.


USING HUNTEDS FROM GM SIDE:

GROUP HUNTED'S GENOCIDE DEALS IN HOW ACTIVE A INTELL EFFORT THEY PUT FORTH NOT BATTLES RANDOM ENTERED.

WRITING PAGE ONE OF THE PAPER AS A AFTER PLAY REVIEW COUNT KEYWORDS WAS THE REPPORTER OR WITNESS A AGENT? DID THE PLAYERS SHOW OFF BIG POWERS?

SUPERMAN STEALS A COP CAR AND CARRIES IT ACROSS THE FAIR GROUNDS

MIGHT DRAW ATTENTION

:help:

[Hugh Neilson]

Which gets back to "go ahead and have enemies, but you don't get any points for them".

The same logic can be applied to (and has been argued in respect of) reputations, DNPC's, psychological limitations, Secret and Public ID's and, no doubt, several other disadvantages. Probably no shortage of limitations, and even some skills and advantages. In fact, I even agree with it in regards to Normal Characteristics Maxima and powers/abilities that will have negligible in-game benefit.

[AnotherSkip]

Hunted where one guy is hunted, and everyone else is ignored, is not a genre trope. If there's hunters involved, they're hunting everyone, and they're a campaign background issue, not a personal disad.

I disagree, a character could easily be the only one hunted while the others are ignored. And frequently happens IRL and source material.

A mutant team member faces harsh discrimination while the others only catch minor flack for associating with the 'mutie'. Mutant character thus has the hunted while the others don't.

it could be a sort of personal challenge thing as another example ("the rest of you can go, I just want HIM!").

In addition if a character is being hunted by cops the rest of the team may get dragged in for questioning (or just questioned right there), but the only guy who will Definately facing jail time is the character with the hunted.
(so yeah this happened a while ago after a real life b-day celebration. Lesson: don't pick fights outside a bar when you have a warrant out for your arrest )

[steamteck]

Which gets back to "go ahead and have enemies, but you don't get any points for them".


I think we're taking past each other . I'm talking about allowing points for enrichening the experience , making bad guys personal and the PC letting me know about how he /she wants things to go down.

I know my arguments aren't making any difference to you but to me the " get the disadvantage but don't get the points for it "you seem to be advocating is a complete, in even worse that non starter for me.

HUgh is saying this far better than I anyway.

[steamteck]

I disagree, a character could easily be the only one hunted while the others are ignored. And frequently happens IRL and source material.

A mutant team member faces harsh discrimination while the others only catch minor flack for associating with the 'mutie'. Mutant character thus has the hunted while the others don't.

it could be a sort of personal challenge thing as another example ("the rest of you can go, I just want HIM!").

In addition if a character is being hunted by cops the rest of the team may get dragged in for questioning (or just questioned right there), but the only guy who will Definitely facing jail time is the character with the hunted.



All these things have happened in my campaigns and spawned some very interesting role playing. In fact I expect some of this sort of thing in our session tonight. If the players handle it well, it really can deepen, flesh out their characters.

[Vulcan]

Which gets back to "go ahead and have enemies, but you don't get any points for them in my game".

Fixed that for you. :D

[Lucius]

I also have nothing against the player saying "My PC is hiding from the Mob". However, that isn't a hunted, that's a social limitation that limits your activity.

While I disagree with your conclusion, you bring up an excellent point.

The hunter does not have to do anything active to be a Disadvantage. If the character is afraid to go certain places, do certain things, talk to certain people, etc, then the Hunted has come up as a Disadvantage.

Every time Gandalf refuses to do some simple spell because it could reveal his location, that's an example of his Hunteds having an impact - even when they don't know it themselves.

Every time Sid Screwdriver wastes time taking a circuitious route because he thinks he's being tailed by the Mob again, his Hunted has come up.

Every time Ethan Matsudo refuses to divulge valuable information to an ally over the phone because he suspects it's tapped, that's an "occurrence" of the Hunted.

The same, in fact, can apply to Dependent Non Player Characters. If their existence causes some problem for the Player Character or influences the character's actions, they don't have to put in an actual appearance in person to be a legitimate Disadvantage.

Lucius Alexander

Hunted by a Dependent Non Player Palindromedary

[BobGreenwade]

While I disagree with your conclusion, you bring up an excellent point.

The hunter does not have to do anything active to be a Disadvantage. If the character is afraid to go certain places, do certain things, talk to certain people, etc, then the Hunted has come up as a Disadvantage.

Every time Gandalf refuses to do some simple spell because it could reveal his location, that's an example of his Hunteds having an impact - even when they don't know it themselves.

Every time Sid Screwdriver wastes time taking a circuitious route because he thinks he's being tailed by the Mob again, his Hunted has come up.

Every time Ethan Matsudo refuses to divulge valuable information to an ally over the phone because he suspects it's tapped, that's an "occurrence" of the Hunted.

The same, in fact, can apply to Dependent Non Player Characters. If their existence causes some problem for the Player Character or influences the character's actions, they don't have to put in an actual appearance in person to be a legitimate Disadvantage.QFT and Repped.

The same principle can be be applied to nearly any Disadvantage -- if it affects the character's choices, then it's come into play whether what it describes is what actually happened or not. The fact that it could have happened, but didn't because the character did something about it, should be considered enough.

[Greywind]

...or the character is a nut-case...

[ghost-angel]

While I disagree with your conclusion, you bring up an excellent point.

The hunter does not have to do anything active to be a Disadvantage. If the character is afraid to go certain places, do certain things, talk to certain people, etc, then the Hunted has come up as a Disadvantage.

Every time Gandalf refuses to do some simple spell because it could reveal his location, that's an example of his Hunteds having an impact - even when they don't know it themselves.

Every time Sid Screwdriver wastes time taking a circuitious route because he thinks he's being tailed by the Mob again, his Hunted has come up.

Every time Ethan Matsudo refuses to divulge valuable information to an ally over the phone because he suspects it's tapped, that's an "occurrence" of the Hunted.

The same, in fact, can apply to Dependent Non Player Characters. If their existence causes some problem for the Player Character or influences the character's actions, they don't have to put in an actual appearance in person to be a legitimate Disadvantage.

Lucius Alexander

Hunted by a Dependent Non Player Palindromedary

Yes - this. A million times over this is the right thought.


...or the character is a nut-case...

But a Disadvantaged Nut....

[ajackson]

I know my arguments aren't making any difference to you but to me the " get the disadvantage but don't get the points for it "you seem to be advocating is a complete, in even worse that non starter for me.
Essentially, by 'hunted' I mean 'signature bad guy'. That just means that the GM, when deciding on bad guys to use in an adventure with your PC, should consider your personal enemy. That's not a disadvantage -- it doesn't really hurt Spiderman that he has Doc Ock come after him instead of, say, Juggernaut.

[BobGreenwade]

Essentially, by 'hunted' I mean 'signature bad guy'. That just means that the GM, when deciding on bad guys to use in an adventure with your PC, should consider your personal enemy. That's not a disadvantage -- it doesn't really hurt Spiderman that he has Doc Ock come after him instead of, say, Juggernaut.And I think that this is a distinction that needs to be made regarding Hunted. It's much more than a "signature bad guy." A Hunter is someone who has a goal that specifically involves hurting the character. Spider-Man is (or has been) Hunted by Green Goblin in all his incarnations, but Hunted by Doctor Octopus? As far as I can think, only the Ultimate Universe version of Spidey has had this. (Of course, that's debatable; and there could be good argument for including exploitation of the character's powers, personality, and activities as an extension of the Mildly Punish element.)

A similar statement can be made about DNPCs: A DNPC is more than just a loved one, it's a loved one who gets into trouble or is threatened during the course of the character's adventures and needs to be protected.

[Greywind]

616 Doc Ock is hunting Spider-Man 8-, as part of his rogue's gallery...

[ajackson]

And I think that this is a distinction that needs to be made regarding Hunted. It's much more than a "signature bad guy."
Often, it really isn't used as much beyond 'signature bad guy'.

[PhilFleischmann]

Essentially, by 'hunted' I mean 'signature bad guy'. That just means that the GM, when deciding on bad guys to use in an adventure with your PC, should consider your personal enemy. That's not a disadvantage -- it doesn't really hurt Spiderman that he has Doc Ock come after him instead of, say, Juggernaut.
Although "coming after him" is different from simply "encountering". Most adventures in most genres aren't about someone hunting the main character. If Spidey happens to see Juggie committing a crime, he stops him. That's not a Hunted. If OTOH, Doc Ock specifically tries to come after Spidey, that might be a hunted (assuming it's more than a one-time thing).

[ajackson]

Although "coming after him" is different from simply "encountering".
Within the context of an RPG, it really isn't all that different -- the bad guys generally have a plan that the heroes have to stop (unless it's a random carnage plot, which has its role but is uncommon), and the difference between the plot being personal (I'm going to torment Peter Parker!) and not (I'm going to hold the city hostage for a billion dollars!) may alter your tactics, but it still results in a pretty similar arc. Also, the major important difference isn't Doc Ock vs Juggernaut, it's whether or not Spidey's DNPCs are involved.

[Greywind]

Hunted implies directly, above the curve involvement with a character. Not always, necessarily, that the Hunted is looking. Just that the character becomes involved.

If the Hunted is actively doing his thing against the character, then, it may just be something along the line of finding a way to keep said character occupied while he attempts a crime/plot.

The DNPC interaction can come secondary.

The Hunted hires 5 thugs to rob 5 separate banks. The Hunted takes the 6th bank, where the DNPC happens to be making a deposit/withdrawal/happens to work.

[steamteck]

Within the context of an RPG, it really isn't all that different -- the bad guys generally have a plan that the heroes have to stop (unless it's a random carnage plot, which has its role but is uncommon), and the difference between the plot being personal (I'm going to torment Peter Parker!) and not (I'm going to hold the city hostage for a billion dollars!) may alter your tactics, but it still results in a pretty similar arc. Also, the major important difference isn't Doc Ock vs Juggernaut, it's whether or not Spidey's DNPCs are involved.


It being personal can and is for us an enormous difference. Emotions and roleplaying run high. Your whole argument seems to come down to some GMs use them poorly or not to potential so they should be dropped. The difference being the villain and the hero having history and things to settle and some bad guy of the week is what could make an OK session into a great one.. Drop the mechanistic mindset for a minute and think about the roleplaying aspect.

[Greywind]

Rollplaying?

Isn't that where all the dice come in?

[ajackson]

Drop the mechanistic mindset for a minute and think about the roleplaying aspect.
Point values are mechanistic. If it doesn't have a mechanical effect, it shouldn't either cost or grant points.

[Greywind]

Point values are mechanistic. If it doesn't have a mechanical effect, it shouldn't either cost or grant points.
Not a question of points, but of interpretation.

[steamteck]

Point values are mechanistic. If it doesn't have a mechanical effect, it shouldn't either cost or grant points.

Well, I disagree with you 100% but Greywind seems to get it. It does have a tremendous effect just not in a roll playing as opposed to role playing game. I've said my piece I think this is just spinning wheels so I guess I'm done.

[AnotherSkip]

Although "coming after him" is different from simply "encountering". Most adventures in most genres aren't about someone hunting the main character. If Spidey happens to see Juggie committing a crime, he stops him. That's not a Hunted. If OTOH, Doc Ock specifically tries to come after Spidey, that might be a hunted (assuming it's more than a one-time thing).

Yeah, yeah, No problem with him Wooing Aunt May... that isn't scary stalker hunting of a PC riiight there... nooooo...

(and it even brings in the DNPC too.)

[BlackSword]

Well, I disagree with you 100% but Greywind seems to get it. It does have a tremendous effect just not in a roll playing as opposed to role playing game. I've said my piece I think this is just spinning wheels so I guess I'm done.
I would like to see the disadvantages go to Hero Points systems as I am not a fan of the current disadvantage system.

I do want to comment on is that it the comment seems to be saying that you have something to have something written on your sheet with a point value attached in order to roleplay, but if you imagine something for your character that has no point effect you are rollplaying.

[Greywind]

No.

Role-playing involves taking the character and putting him through situations that, in one way or another, leads to growth of the character. Active involvement and interaction.

Roll-playing is usually indicative of a tactical wargame, wherein the "characters" are sheets with stats and abilities.

[ajackson]

Role-playing involves taking the character and putting him through situations that, in one way or another, leads to growth of the character. Active involvement and interaction.

Roll-playing is usually indicative of a tactical wargame, wherein the "characters" are sheets with stats and abilities.
And points are a feature of the second, not the first. If a hunted leads to more compelling adventures, personal growth, whatever, great -- take a hunted. I'm firmly in favor of all characters having several plot seeds in their backstory that the GM can mine for adventure possibilities. I just don't think there should be point values associated with those plot seeds.

[Greywind]

Find a different system. They are part of the heart of Hero.

[BlackSword]

I just finished running a Hero game without using disadvantages. The game ran just fine.

[ajackson]

Find a different system. They are part of the heart of Hero.
Oh really? You can run Hero without disadvantages at all, and a substantial portion of disadvantages in Hero are pure mechanical effects. My objection is specifically to disadvantages that:

Grab the Spotlight. Many players value being in the spotlight; as such, an effect that lets you seize some control over the story is an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Create extra work for the GM. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just the players.
Don't actually limit the PCs options.

[Vulcan]

Personally, I think that if you don't want to use Hunted - or, for that matter, if you don't want to use disadvantages at all - that's fine. Guess what? You don't have to use them. We're not going to come to your game and beat you down for not using them.

What we're trying to say is that we find disads to be useful tools. If you don't, that's fine. You can just ignore that chapter of the book. But if you remove that chapter entirely, then we have to keep older editions of the game to keep the part (disads) that we like.

And at that point, why should we bother buying 6E in the first place?

[Greywind]

Oh really? You can run Hero without disadvantages at all, and a substantial portion of disadvantages in Hero are pure mechanical effects. My objection is specifically to disadvantages that:

Grab the Spotlight. Many players value being in the spotlight; as such, an effect that lets you seize some control over the story is an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Create extra work for the GM. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just the players.
Don't actually limit the PCs options.


Comes a point in time, you should give each character/player the spotlight. If you find it unbalanced toward one player or another, I'd say the problem is coming from the GM or player. Not the disads. Your comment is strictly interpretation.

If you don't want the workload of running a game, be a player.

Only disads that limit options tend to be either physical lims or psych crocks. And a successful EGO Roll can bypass a psych.

[ajackson]

Comes a point in time, you should give each character/player the spotlight.
Agreed. However, there's no particular reason for a character's plot seeds to be linked to his disads, and a disad that cannot be invoked without granting the character spotlight time is problematic.

[Greywind]

Again, strictly your opinion, because, irregardless the GM makes the final call whether or not a disad will or will not come into play at a specific point.

[Klaus Mogensen]

If you find it unbalanced toward one player or another, I'd say the problem is coming from the GM or player. Not the disads. Your comment is strictly interpretation.
However, an interpretation I agree with - but I have to spread reputation around...


If you don't want the workload of running a game, be a player.
It has nothing to do with workload. It's a GM's job to provide conflict, irregardless of whether the PC's have certain disads or not.


Only disads that limit options tend to be either physical lims or psych crocks. And a successful EGO Roll can bypass a psych.
Some psych lims may also be plot hooks more than option limitations. "Hates orcs" is in that respect rather similar to "Loves Doris Dane".

"Real" disadvantages that limit a character are Phys Lim, Susceptibility, Dependence, Vulnerability, and possibly Distinctive Looks.

Most other disadvantages are plot hooks that a player should take for his character because they make playing more interesting, not to squeeze extra points out of the system. I have often seen players taking Disadvantages that they don't feel anything for ("I need a Dependent NPC - let's make that a little brother that I'll ignore unless he show up") and which the GM thus tends to ignore ("I have already made a plot - no way I can fit Doris Dane, Tiny Tim, Ronan Rahneson, and Dr. Death into it. I'll skip them even though the roll indicates they should show up.").

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Sorry for the sidetrack, but two in a row:


Again, strictly your opinion, because, irregardless the GM makes the final call whether or not a disad will or will not come into play at a specific point.


It has nothing to do with workload. It's a GM's job to provide conflict, irregardless of whether the PC's have certain disads or not.

"Irregardless" is not a word! :thumbdown The word is "regardless" - meaning "without regard to". "Irregardless" would mean "*not* without regard to", hence "*with* regard to". Just a pet peeve of mine.

Back on topic:

It's not just Psych Lims and Phys Lims that "limit a character's options". Dependence, Distinctive Features, Reputation, Social Lim, Susceptibility, at the least, also do.

And most Disads to not put the character "in the spotlight": Age, Dependence, Distinctive Features, Enraged, Phys Lim, Psych Lim, Social Lim, Susceptibility, Unluck, Vulnerability, all need not put the character in the spotlight.

[ajackson]

Again, strictly your opinion, because, irregardless the GM makes the final call whether or not a disad will or will not come into play at a specific point.
Then why does it have a frequency, if the GM is going to ignore that frequency?

[Klaus Mogensen]

"Irregardless" is not a word! :thumbdown The word is "regardless" - meaning "without regard to". "Irregardless" would mean "*not* without regard to", hence "*with* regard to". Just a pet peeve of mine.
Sorry about that. :o Since English isn't my native language, I often pick up bad habits from other people.

- Klaus

[ajackson]

Sorry about that. :o Since English isn't my native language, I often pick up bad habits from other people.
That's okay, he's not actually correct. Irregardless is a word, it's just a word that you should avoid using in formal language (the fact is, language doesn't follow the rules of format logic -- a double negative is frequently an emphatic, not a positive).

[Greywind]

Then why does it have a frequency, if the GM is going to ignore that frequency?
I often ignore frequency by die roll, and throw it into a mental juggling act to decide whether or not it needs to rear its ugly head.

The higher the target, the more often it SHOULD appear. Not WILL appear.

Besides stop thinking of the book as a rule book and put it in perspective as a book of mutually (between GM and Players) acceptable guidelines.

[Hugh Neilson]

I can recall tracking the rolls, deciding "not in this session", but keeping a note that Pretty Polly was due an appearance in the near future, when her die roll didn't come up. This uses the dice for frequency, without allowing them to dictate timing,

At the same time, is it really equivalent when one character has his cell phone in his cape pocket ring at an inconvenient time because Aunt April wants to know where he is - it's past curfew - while Doris Dane is kidnapped by the Evil Mad Scientist and used several times to distract her boyfriend from the combat at hand?

[Markdoc]

That's okay, he's not actually correct. Irregardless is a word, it's just a word that you should avoid using in formal language (the fact is, language doesn't follow the rules of format logic -- a double negative is frequently an emphatic, not a positive).

Indeed, it's perfectly cromulent word!

Phil's mostly right through. "irregardless" is a word in the same in the same way that "I ain't got none" is an expression. Both are widely used, both are widely understood and both are grammatically incorrect. For what's that's worth :D.

cheers, Mark

[Greywind]

I aim to misbehave.

[AnotherSkip]

so is 'i aim to misbehave' a Sol lim or a Psy lim?

[IndianaJoe3]

so is 'i aim to misbehave' a Sol lim or a Psy lim?

Psych Lim. Misbehaving doesn't necessarily make one an outcast or cause other problems.

Should Reputation be folded into Social Limitation?

[Vulcan]

Should Reputation be folded into Social Limitation?

Not a bad idea, that. Leave Reputation as a perk, and roll the disad version as a Social Limitation. Solves the problem of new players wondering if Reputations are supposed to be good or bad things, without changing anything major.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Better yet, let Reputation be a zero-point background trait. You pay a hero point whenever you want to use your Reputation to achieve something important, and you get a hero point every time your Reputations hinders you in important ways.

This way, the same Reputation can be both good and bad.

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

Should Reputation be folded into Social Limitation?
Not a bad idea, that. Leave Reputation as a perk, and roll the disad version as a Social Limitation. Solves the problem of new players wondering if Reputations are supposed to be good or bad things, without changing anything major.I think this question has been discussed before, and this is the solution I favor. It's been said before, but I don't think quite so succinctly and clearly.

[BobGreenwade]

On another subtopic: in the discussion on leaving Disadvantages as providing only Character Points versus letting some provide Hero Points, I'd suggest going with the former as the "official" method, and presenting the latter as an option. (This is one option that I think would be better served in the core rulebook, though, rather than the Advanced one.)

[Vulcan]

Better yet, let Reputation be a zero-point background trait. You pay a hero point whenever you want to use your Reputation to achieve something important, and you get a hero point every time your Reputations hinders you in important ways.

This way, the same Reputation can be both good and bad.

- Klaus

Here we go with the %*#&$! hero points again...



Sure. We can make it an option. I'll go for that; that way I don't have to use it.

[Greywind]

At the rate the "zero point" comes up, the characters will have whatever their starting allotment is, and nothing further. Disads won't be part of character make-up.

[Klaus Mogensen]

At the rate the "zero point" comes up, the characters will have whatever their starting allotment is, and nothing further. Disads won't be part of character make-up.
That's more or less how Complications work in M&M2, and people take lots of them anyway, even though they aren't forced to.

- Klaus

[Lucius]

I really, really, really, really HATE the word "Crock."

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary elaborates: nothing against the word in the sense of crockery, or even as short for "crock of ____" but used in this sense the word is...well, a crock of ____

[steamteck]

I would like to see the disadvantages go to Hero Points systems as I am not a fan of the current disadvantage system.

I do want to comment on is that it the comment seems to be saying that you have something to have something written on your sheet with a point value attached in order to roleplay, but if you imagine something for your character that has no point effect you are rollplaying.

Disagree with you on that statement 1000 % That's not even vaguely what I meant. I don't even see how you get that. I think we're on to differnt planets.
What I 'm saying is the current system encourages my group ,at least, to make characters with far more depth and personality that a freeform system. Something like the old Central Casting books certainly does the same thing. However I think asking people to take things that disadvantage their character with no or insuffient return is asking too much.

Final note,To me the current system is one of the core wonderful things about HERO. Significantly changing it, frankly, is not negociable to get my dollar

[steamteck]

Better yet, let Reputation be a zero-point background trait. You pay a hero point whenever you want to use your Reputation to achieve something important, and you get a hero point every time your Reputations hinders you in important ways.

This way, the same Reputation can be both good and bad.

- Klaus


I agree with Vulcan. HERO points should be optional at most. Then I can opt out.:D

[PhilFleischmann]

Should Reputation be folded into Social Limitation?
NO!

That only complicated things. Having them separate keeps things clearer. It's better to have the Disads (and Powers, and everything else) broken down into smaller, easier-to-understand-and-explain pieces.

As I mentioned many pages ago, there are really only three categories of Disads: Physical, Mental, and Social. All of the Disads could be folded together into one of these three. Would it make them easier to understand? No. Would their explanations take up less space in the book? No. It would be like reading a complex textbook that wasn't divided into chapters. You'd have to absorb big chunks of information at once, rather than in small, discrete pieces. It would be harder to find the particular section you're looking for.

Obviously, there is a limit to how far you can break something down, before it gets ridiculous, but in general, the way the current rules are written is about the right level of "broken-down-ness" (with only a few, off-topic exceptions: I say Succor should be broken out into its own Power, especially since it doesn't quite obey the same rules as Aid; and UBO and UAA should be made separate Advantages, since they do very different things; and then there's the whole Regeneration/Healing issue).

[Greywind]

That's more or less how Complications work in M&M2, and people take lots of them anyway, even though they aren't forced to.

- Klaus
Which lends credence to, if you want to play that system, play that system.

[BlackSword]

Disagree with you on that statement 1000 % That's not even vaguely what I meant. I don't even see how you get that. I think we're on to differnt planets.
Where it came from was the comments that seemed to indicate that one couldn't roleplay without the current disadvantage system. There were several in a row that throwing out broad generalizations of roll-playing vs role-playing.

What I 'm saying is the current system encourages my group ,at least, to make characters with far more depth and personality that a freeform system. Something like the old Central Casting books certainly does the same thing. However I think asking people to take things that disadvantage their character with no or insuffient return is asking too much.

Final note,To me the current system is one of the core wonderful things about HERO. Significantly changing it, frankly, is not negociable to get my dollar
The proposed change rewards characters for their disadvantage when the disadvantage comes up. It also allows for some of the quirks of disadvantages that could work as both an advantage and disadvantage depending on the situation (the previously mentioned "reputation"). In our group we typically also give small XP rewards for stories, which IMO, flesh out the characters much more than the disadvantages.

[BlackSword]

Find a different system. They are part of the heart of Hero.


Which lends credence to, if you want to play that system, play that system.
This is the second time you have asked customers to leave the game system. This is an open forum of changes proposed for the Hero system, people are bringing in experiences from other games that they like and are proposing if they may work in Hero. If you don't like the proposed change argue your point of view, 'go away' is not an argument.

[Greywind]

I'm not vocalizing for anyone to "go away". Arguments of "this system works this way" when it isn't the Hero System really don't have a lot to offer. If the person in question states "I prefer not to use this part of the system" then that is a different argument.

The Disadvantages do different things.

They balance the character, points for problems. The players have a say in the disads. That is how they help have an impact upon the play environment. At the same time, the GM has a say in those self-same disads. He decides when and how they will impact upon the character.

Some are arguing that the disads are nothing more than plot hooks that the players don't deserve points for. Fine. Don't allow the players to take any disads and run with 200 point characters. That is an option open under the guidelines of FRED.

Every player of this system that I've talked with, want the ability to have a say in the direction of the game through their disads. They don't see it as a disadvantage, but rather as an integral part of the game system.

I've heard "too much work for the GM". Sorry, but the answer to that "problem" is easily "stop running" or "stop playing" or "find a less intensive rule set". But you don't rip apart things that are at the core of the system simply because of "I don't like it" or "it doesn't make any sense to me."

[Lucius]

I like the current Disadvantage system and would prefer not to see radical changes to it.

That is, I don't mind seeing it changed in some ways, but I don't want to see it replaced with something from a different paradigm.

Oh, and I really hate the word "crock."

Lucius Alexander

Disadvantage: Palindromedary

[ajackson]

Some are arguing that the disads are nothing more than plot hooks that the players don't deserve points for.
No, the argument is that certain disads are nothing more than plot hooks that aren't worth points.

Every player of this system that I've talked with, want the ability to have a say in the direction of the game through their disads.
Why through disads, rather than just 'plot hooks'? Why do I need to take a disadvantage to have a say in the direction of the game? Also, why are you limiting your survey to 'players'?

[Vulcan]

Also, why are you limiting your survey to 'players'?

I would guess two reasons:

1) For every GM there is a (admittedly rough) average of 5 players.

2) Most GM's are also players every chance they get.

[Volcilord]

Make template a 50 point disadvantage where exceeding normal characteristics maxima adjusted for size and the like costs double. Disadvantages due to template use do not get more points when 50 points is taken already, as a hill giant can always buy +2 DCV for 10 points to show nimbleness. Forced template purchases are part of the 50 point disadvantage award.

[Greywind]

No, the argument is that certain disads are nothing more than plot hooks that aren't worth points.

Why through disads, rather than just 'plot hooks'? Why do I need to take a disadvantage to have a say in the direction of the game? Also, why are you limiting your survey to 'players'?


I would guess two reasons:

1) For every GM there is a (admittedly rough) average of 5 players.

2) Most GM's are also players every chance they get.Pretty much. Would you prefer I said "Hero System users"?

Disads also morph during play. Character is hunted by agents. As he eliminates the agents, the remaining ones get tougher, reducing the quantity, but increasing the quality.

[rjcurrie]

To me, the advantage of having "plot hook" disadvantages is that those disads are listed right on the character sheet and the very act of the player selecting the disad and the GM approving the character is more or less a contract that the "plot hook" will show up.

And from a bookkeeping point of view, as a GM, it is far easier to keep track of such "contracts" if they're right on the character sheets as opposed to being recorded elsewhere.

And of course, a GM can always free to simply not allow certain disads, perhaps compensating by raising the base points given. For example, you might disallow Hunteds and DNPCs and say that characters are to be built on 275 points + up to 75 points in disads as opposed to the usual 200+150.

[steamteck]

The proposed change rewards characters for their disadvantage when the disadvantage comes up. It also allows for some of the quirks of disadvantages that could work as both an advantage and disadvantage depending on the situation (the previously mentioned "reputation"). In our group we typically also give small XP rewards for stories, which IMO, flesh out the characters much more than the disadvantages.


I already reward them when disadvantages come up anyway. Again the current disadvantage system allows at least our group a chance to really flesh characters out and think about them in more detail at conception.

One can certainly roleplay without the current system I just find it an enormous aid in character creation. If I had to chuck everything in HERO but could keep only one thing . The disadvantage system would be it. I think we are at opposite poles and never shall meet myself. I guess agree to disagree.



BTW, Well said, RJcurrie!

[ajackson]

To me, the advantage of having "plot hook" disadvantages is that those disads are listed right on the character sheet and the very act of the player selecting the disad and the GM approving the character is more or less a contract that the "plot hook" will show up.
Why not put them in the 'plot hook' section of the character sheet?

[Greywind]

Because if that is all there is to them, the GM doesn't have to honor the agreement.

[ajackson]

Because if that is all there is to them, the GM doesn't have to honor the agreement.
He doesn't have to honor the agreement regardless of where you put them.

[Greywind]

Then why play with him?

[ajackson]

Then why play with him?
I think that's your question to answer, not mine. If he isn't going to honor the 'plot hooks' listed on your character sheet, he's a bad GM, and there's really no reason to think he'll do any better of a job with the hunteds.

[Greywind]

Not necessarily. The system gives a means to the character to get those hooks and a way that more or less requires the GM to honor them.

[ajackson]

Not necessarily. The system gives a means to the character to get those hooks and a way that more or less requires the GM to honor them.
This assertion is incompatible with the claim that the GM decides when disadvantages come up.

[Greywind]

Not at all.

[ghost-angel]

A GM is under no obligation to use Disadvantages either under the current system or any other proposed system.

The mere act of having them in the system is not a garauntee that they will see game-play. It's not really a valid argument to go on. you can't Force a GM to do anything any more than you can FORCE a Player to do something.

I happen to like Disadvantages, not specifically in their current incarnation, but I don't want to see them go away. Especially not for "Hero Points" which is a system I actaully abhore.
But I like them not because they "force" roleplay in any way. I just happen to like the asthetics of them.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Many "Disadvantages" are merely story hooks; they may inconvenience the character, but they don't make him/her weaker, and they often make life more interesting for the player. I don't think these should give character points. I have suggested rewarding such "Background Traits" with hero points when they come into play, but there has been some opposition to that. However, I think Background Traits can be written up as 0-point traits without requiring hero points (except as an option):

Background Traits
Background Traits are aspects of a character's background that detail the character's past history and the complications and connections that is a part of the character's baggage. Background Traits are neither abilities or weaknesses - they don't make the character more or less powerful. Instead, they are external circumstances that influence the character's life. They can sometimes be helpful, and at other times an inconvenience. In short, they help make life interesting for the character.

Background Traits have no value in terms of character points, but have built-in advantages and disadvantages that should balance out over time. The GM could keep a tally of when the Trait helps the character and when it inconveniences him, and try to keep this from swinging too far in either direction.

If the optional rule of hero points is used, the GM can award a character with hero points whenever a Background Trait inconvenience the character, and require payment of hero points whenever the character uses the Trait to help himself.

Example: Arch-Enemy
The character has a bitter foe. This could be a single person, or it could be an organization.
Advantage: Whenever the character deals with the arch-enemy, he gets a +2 bonus to all attack and skill rolls because he is familiar with his enemy's methods and weaknesses.
Disadvantage: The arch-enemy will at times pop up during an adventure and try to make life hard for the character, either through a direct attack or by putting obstacles in the character's path.

Example: Great Beauty
The character is a rare beauty; one that turns the heads of everyone.
Advantage: The character gets a +2 bonus in social situations where beauty can play a factor.
Disadvantage: The character's great beauty will often attract unwanted attention from the opposite sex or jealously from the same sex. It also makes it hard to stay inconspicuous.

Example: Affiliation
The character belongs to an organization of some kind - a guild, the military, the priesthood, a secret society, etc.
Advantage: The character can depend on the organization's support when the situation call for it: Access to special equipment, legal aid, or direct assistance from members of the organization.
Disadvantage: The organization that the character belongs to may at times make requirements of the character and/or may require a certain code of conduct.

Example: Contact
The character has a contact with access to information that isn't publically available. Examples could be an underworld contact, a police officer, a journalist, a court advisor, etc.
Advantage: The contact can provide information that helps the character to solve a given problem or task.
Disadvantage: The contact may require a favor in return for information.

Example: Authority
The character has political, legal, military, or other authority that allows him to command certain types of NPCs.
Advantage: The character can command NPCs to help with certain problems or tasks.
Disadvantage: The character has responsibilities that may restrict his ability to act in some situations.

Note that some of these Background Traits have characteristics of both Disadvantages and Perks; this is intentional.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

soooo i can add every one of these to my character with out adding to my point totals?

not so sure about that.....

[Steve Long]

Hey folx! It's time for me to start reading all the 6E threads, and that means I need to lock them.

Hopefully 15 months has been plenty of time for anyone who wanted to have a say, to have a say. ;) So please, don't start up other threads to try to continue discussions, send me PMs with points you "just have to make," or anything like that. It's time for y'all to sit back, relax, have a frosty beverage, and let me get 6E written. ;)

We definitely appreciate everyone's interest, participation, and ideas! I'm looking forward to reading the posts and seeing what nuggets of wisdom lurk therein. I have no doubt 6E is going to be even better than it would have been because of our fans' enthusiastic efforts at providing us with input and suggestions. :hex: