Disadvantages Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Disadvantages that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Disadvantages that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is worth considering. While they can hinder a character, Disadvantages’ real role is to provide plot hooks for the GM to get characters into a story, or to complicate the events of a story. Calling them “Complications” or something of the sort would more accurately describe them, I think. It would also eliminate any possible confusion among people who wonder why Advantages and Disadvantages aren’t “opposites.”


Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think so. A Limitation is an entirely separate game mechanic, and using the term in Disadvantages may be confusing to some people. Calling them Physical Disadvantage, Psychological Disadvantage, and the like makes more sense.


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.

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.


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.


Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I wrote up an article about this in DH #25, and I’ll probably implement that expansion in the 6E rules.


Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea should be considered. Champions had some rules along these lines that might be worth incorporating into the main rules.


Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?

Steve’s Thoughts: There’s some argument to be made that these two Disadvantages are essentially flipsides of the same coin and would work better as one. I’m certainly not convinced yet, but it’s worth thinking about.

[CourtFool]

I like Complications.

I am cool with eliminating Limitation too. How about Psychological Complication?

I agree you should change the Disadvantages reward you for taking them. For several years I have allowed fewer and fewer points to come from Disadvantages. In my current two campaigns, you get no points for Disadvantages. You are rewarded when they come into play.

Age/Normal Characteristic Maxima should be removed as a Disadvantage. I have all but ignored it most of the time anyway.

[Chris Goodwin]

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.

I like the idea of changing how Disadvantages work. One thing; have you seen Evil Hat Games' FATE? A variation on the Fudge system, its main innovation was something called Aspects. They're general descriptors that have good and bad sides; they can be invoked by a player at will, or "compelled" by the GM. When the Aspect is invoked by the player, he gets a Hero Point*, assuming it fits with the situation, is sufficiently invoked, etc. When an Aspect is compelled, the GM offers the player a Hero Point, in exchange for the GM using the Aspect against the character in some way. The player can decline to accept, in which case he has to pay the GM a Hero Point.

* I think if you use them you should call them exactly that. Where else would Hero Points be but in the Hero System? :hex:

[CourtFool]

I have to agree with Chris here. I like the duality of Spirit of the Century's Aspects.

[Jhamin]

While I can see both sides of the Disadvantages issue, I would honestly be good with either one.

If you do decide to go with the current system I would love to see either the elimination of or major revisons to the "Dependence" disadvantage. As it stands now, you set the frequency of the bad effects and if you go much over 1/min the value of the disad reaches 0.

This means that Dependence is only good for is something that kills you if you don't have it for 10 seconds. It feels like "must be bathed in radiation every 24 hours or looses 1d6 body" should be a dependence, and a 10 or 15 point one at that, but under the current rules it isn't worth anything.

[incrdbil]

In reference to Hero points, or just reducing the amount of disadvantages most characters need to take..

Can you fx it so players can do both? Use Disads to either get more points, or get a pool of resuable Hero points, or a combination in between?

[James Gillen]

I like the idea of changing how Disadvantages work. One thing; have you seen Evil Hat Games' FATE? A variation on the Fudge system, its main innovation was something called Aspects. They're general descriptors that have good and bad sides; they can be invoked by a player at will, or "compelled" by the GM. When the Aspect is invoked by the player, he gets a Hero Point*, assuming it fits with the situation, is sufficiently invoked, etc. When an Aspect is compelled, the GM offers the player a Hero Point, in exchange for the GM using the Aspect against the character in some way. The player can decline to accept, in which case he has to pay the GM a Hero Point.

* I think if you use them you should call them exactly that. Where else would Hero Points be but in the Hero System? :hex:

This is also similar to how it's done in Mutants & Masterminds 2nd Edition. This would be an interesting way to go.

JG

[Enforcer84]

Changing naming conventions seems unnecessary to me, I personally don't like thinking that gamers are easily confused.

The second bit about changing the reward for them is interesting but it seems a bit extreme.

the last for questions I say: Go for it.
and throw Quirks in.

[Spudboy]

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.

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.

I like all the above :)

[steamteck]

I like tons of disadvantages especially psychologicals to define the character. I really like the whole extra points for fleshing out a character concept. I feel like such a old unadaptable guy here but this another core concept of HERO to me and another make or break issue like characteristics

[Chris Goodwin]

Thinking some more about it: when I first got into the system, the idea of rewarding people for making their characters more interesting, as well as giving GMs hooks to bring them into adventures, was one of the coolest parts for me. So, keep Disadvantages as is, but add the "Hero Points for invoking" aspect as a toolkitting option.

[Kdansky]

I'm also strongly in favour of doing something along the lines of FATE, even though that's sooo un-hero :) Use some of the rules that Luck has for it, I suppose.

[mikesama]

Some disadvantages are just that others are complications.

Suseptabilities are full on disads with feeling negative issues.

Most psych lims, hunteds DNPCs and the like are more like extended plot hooks. Some fall in the middle. Honestly you should almost split them out into hooks and disads and limit the disads much more. (I believe 300 + 50 was mentioned)

[nexus]

Keep the standard rules for disadvantages but make the Hero point reward system optional as part of the toolkitting approach. Going the "compelling" route would add a layer of Shared Narrative Control that some groups aren't comfortable with but could make a good option for that that want it.

I also wouldn't mind lower amounts of Disads required. It would mean less scraping for points.

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.
Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?
Disadvantages sounds generic enough for me. I see no compelling reason to change it.

Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?
Yes, Using terms like Physical Disadvantage would eliminate a possible point of confusion.

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

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.
I generally agree with the two paragraphs above. In our games we have often reduced the Disadvantage level and boosted the Base Points level. Instead of a Heroic game of 75+75 we use 100+50. The logic being that 50 points of played disadvantages add more to the game than 75 points worth that may hardly enter into the game. In a Super Heroic setting with six players each having 150 points of Disadvantages this can become a real problem. If the Disadvantages are going to be used as used as they ought to be, every game would focus on PC Disadvantages to the exclusion of other themes. A Disadvantage that is not limiting in some way should not be worth points. Therefore we prefer to reduce the number of disadvantages to a manageable level so the character are given a hardship for their disads and yet the game is not totally sidetracked by worrying about the thee DNPCs and two Hunters that turned up in the middle of the odd environmental situation that the GM had to concoct to make another Characters Disad present a real hazard.

Q: Should Age/Normal Characteristic Maxima be removed as a Disadvantage?
Yes, they really don't belong in a Supers game and a Heroic Game uses CHAR Maxima by default anyway.

Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I wrote up an article about this in DH #25, and I’ll probably implement that expansion in the 6E rules.
I reviewed the article and I like it.

Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea should be considered. Champions had some rules along these lines that might be worth incorporating into the main rules.
For those interested this can be found on page 158 of Champions or page 190 of 25th Anniversary Champions. I like what I read there.

Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?
I think so. I have always found Dependence to be kind of odd.

[Vondy]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Probably a good idea. Complications works.


Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

Since its technical terminology, yes. It needs to be precise.

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

Very interesting. I like the idea of having characters allotted flat points without disads and then having a complications requirement with flowerly language informing them "this is a good thing - no really." This way all characters have the same base points and complications, and it allows the GM to raise or lower the complication totals without worrying about how many points the characters are built on. It also reduces the need for caps on categories of complications - though guidelines are a good idea. Having a sidebar option with proposed incentives would be an excellent option.


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


Absolutely. I never give points for it. Its counter to the underlying zeitgeist of the game. You either build a character with "normal level" stats in a superheroic game, or the GM sets the maxima as a hard-cap or a pay-more-to-exceed cap for other genres.


Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?


Yes. I use physical limitations, but as they are I generally hand-wave the value and deal with the potential impact on the fly. More options would be very good.


Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea should be considered. Champions had some rules along these lines that might be worth incorporating into the main rules.


Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?


I think this should be one complication and that it should be expanded upon.

I would also like to emphasize a problem I've had with it: modelling addiction. As written these are only effective or worth points in combat time-frames and aren't very useful for potentially longer term situations (which pop up in a lot of games where simulation, role-play, or plot take a focus on a lim). You can handwave it with physical limitations (and I frequently do), but being able to handle longer-term decline or gradual loss of competence due to it would be nice.

[buzz]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should.

...snip...

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.
Wow! I have been wanting to suggest this forever, and Steve beat me to it. :cool:

Getting points for Disads is one of my biggest issues with HERO. What Steve suggests above is a perfect solution.

[gojira]

Wanted to say that I pretty much agree with everything Steve posted in the first post. No worries here from me.

One small note, going to a new Disadvantage system (I'll use the old terminology here for clarity), it may be useful to split Disadvantages into those a character gets points for, and those a characters gets something else.

So for example, a current character at 200+150 point, instead of going to 350 + 50 points, might go to 350 + 20 points, plus some other Disadvantages that do things other than give points. This would add a bit more variety of mechanics and would allow Hero to have whatever mechanism worked best for a given Disadvantage and genre.

It might even be possible to establish point equivalents for all Disadvantages. The main rule book could, for example, list all Disadvantages with both a point cost and something else. Genre books should establish which gets used in those campaigns, but GMs could overrule this and prefer one over the other. This would emphasize the "tool kit" approach to Hero, although it might complicate getting the rule balance just right.

[Jhamin]

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

I have seen enough oddball games where these matter that I would hate to loose them entirely. That said, they do tend to work a lot different than the other Disadvantages. If they do go away as they currently exist I'd love to see "Physical Limitation: Normal guy in a campaign full of cyborgs and vampires" as an example in one of the sidebars.

[Comic]

"If a Complication doesn't complicate, it isn't worth points."

cv

"If a Disadvantage doesn't disadvantage, it isn't worth points."

Hrm. Hrm. Gotta admit, I like the new one better.

Then again, that Shaft, he's a Complicated man.. Still works.

[pawsplay]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is worth considering. While they can hinder a character, Disadvantages’ real role is to provide plot hooks for the GM to get characters into a story, or to complicate the events of a story. Calling them “Complications” or something of the sort would more accurately describe them, I think. It would also eliminate any possible confusion among people who wonder why Advantages and Disadvantages aren’t “opposites.”


Complications that hinder your opponents are "advantages." The only kind of "Complication" that applies in this case is a disadvantage of some kind. I can see the Advantage/Disadvantage thing. I've seen the terms Hindrance and Flaw, although I'm not fond of them. I'd rather rename Advantages to be something else.


Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think so. A Limitation is an entirely separate game mechanic, and using the term in Disadvantages may be confusing to some people. Calling them Physical Disadvantage, Psychological Disadvantage, and the like makes more sense.


Of course.


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


Yes. This is by no means a definitive suggestion, but I've found you can vastly improve a superhero game by dividing the value of all Disadvantages by 5 and giving people more points. Extraneous and fiddly Disadvantages magically disappear, and no one has to be vulnerable to green kryptonite unless they feel like it. On the plus side, this encourages adding Limitations to powers instead whenever possible, which is great! A Power that is not universally effective or that is not always available is a lot easier for the GM to create challenges for.

It also rounds things out... having someone lose their ePD and and Force Field against a cold attack is a lot more playable than having a 12d6 EB double against one PC. So "ordinary" kinds of vulnerabilities like vulnerability to killing attacks would be reworked as a Limitation on PD, or extra PD "Not versus Killing attacks."

In this model, for instance, a Code Versus Killing would be worth 4 points, enough to buy another CSL or a die of damage. That's what makes sense. The ONLY thing keeping Disads balanced up until now is that you are only allowed so many of them.

Any time there is a symmetrical Disad/trait relationship, it should be possible to simply lower the trait. If that is not the case, then the Disad is probably not going to come up a lot in play anyway. No Physical Limitation, "I take -2 on DEX rolls."

Susceptability has always been undervalued. Under my pricing scheme, it would probably be boosted a few points. Since Disads would be worth a lot less, this should not be a problem.

Talents like Resistance and Lightning Reflexes would be expanded. Instead of taking Vulnerability to Presence Attacks, the new paradigm would be buying more modest characteristics and taking a little bit of non-powered Mental Defense.

[misterdeath]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Yes please. I just re-picked up the system after a 3ish year lay off, and am now teaching it to a bunch of D&D players.

Disadvantages seems to be a hard concept to wrap their brains around. Calling them Complications or Plot Hooks is more what their intended purpose is.

And, then the player can't say, "I don't want any Disadvantages, I've got enough in real life, I role play to get away from real life."

Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

I think so. If they're disadvantages, then they should be disadvantages. The terminology is very confusing for new people.

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

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. That's how I ended up explaining it. It sort of worked.

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

Finally put a bullet in it's head.

Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?

Steve’s Thoughts: There’s some argument to be made that these two Disadvantages are essentially flipsides of the same coin and would work better as one. I’m certainly not convinced yet, but it’s worth thinking about.

I see the symmetry. I don't know whether combining the two would make it easier, or harder to look at.

D

[CourtFool]

Yes please. I just re-picked up the system after a 3ish year lay off, and am now teaching it to a bunch of D&D players.

Disadvantages seems to be a hard concept to wrap their brains around. Calling them Complications or Plot Hooks is more what their intended purpose is.

And, then the player can't say, "I don't want any Disadvantages, I've got enough in real life, I role play to get away from real life."


Exactly. Even the 'Disadvantages' built into The Game Which Shall Not Be Mentioned get largely ignored anyway.

[Zeropoint]

Normal Characteristic Maxima as an optional disadvantage is broken, in my opinion. I see it, and play it, as a campaign-wide option that everyone either has automatically for no points, or is forbidden to take.

I also agree with the issues about Dependence--it's mostly useless as it is, because anything that doesn't kill you within a few hours isn't worth any points.

I would REALLY like to see an end to people struggling to come up with their full allotment of disadvantages. That's the worst part of character creation, in my opinion, and it tends to make characters look similar, because many of the disadvantages just don't fit most characters, especially heroic characters.

I'd like to combine the two approaches that have been mentioned here. I propose that disadvantages be split into "game mechanical disadvantages" that affect a character more or less automatically, either all the time or whenever they come up (Susceptibility and Vulnerability, for instance). These would be priced lower, so that a character who didn't take any wouldn't be crippled.

The other category would be "plot complications" (like Hunted and DNPC). These wouldn't reward you in character points at character creation, but would provide opportunities to earn Hero Points in play.

[Susano]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is worth considering. While they can hinder a character, Disadvantages’ real role is to provide plot hooks for the GM to get characters into a story, or to complicate the events of a story. Calling them “Complications” or something of the sort would more accurately describe them, I think. It would also eliminate any possible confusion among people who wonder why Advantages and Disadvantages aren’t “opposites.”


I like "Complications" as it better sums up what ah... Disadvantages do.


Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think so. A Limitation is an entirely separate game mechanic, and using the term in Disadvantages may be confusing to some people. Calling them Physical Disadvantage, Psychological Disadvantage, and the like makes more sense.


This works for me and puts Limitations squarely where they belong -- with Powers and the like.


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.

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.


Okay, personally, I'd like to think that I've grown (and so has my gaming group) beyond "frivolous" Disads and the like. We try asnd define our characters with Disads that make sense, and don't try and metagame them. We also recently started to experiment with things like "build to concept" with no point limits and the like, with the understanding that the characters should only take Disads that would actually affect them, and thus we shouldn't feel bad about having Bonuses making up the difference. Of course, this is me, and not a new person talking, but personally, I like the X + X format of setting up a game. However, I could see reducing the needed number of Disads.

One suggestion would be to look at published characters, who often are built to concept and not a certain point level (well... perhaps to a certain point level, but there's little pressure to have everything balance perfectly). How many points did they need to create the character desired? 50? 100? Would supers work better as 250 + 100?


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.


Hmm... how about as a Physical Limiation? If Phys Lims affect you physically, wouldn't Age be a form of Physical Limitation?


Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I wrote up an article about this in DH #25, and I’ll probably implement that expansion in the 6E rules.


I also think you need more examples of common Phys Lims, how they affect the character and how to defeine them. Example: No Legs, One Leg, One Arm, One Hand, One Eye, Blind, Bad Eye Sight, Hard Of Hearing, and so on. Is "Can't Swim" a Phys Lim? How about "Can't Read?" I also wonder about some of GURPS disadvantages, such as "Technological Primitive" and the like. Are they Phys Lims? How about "Culture Fish Out Of Water"? And what about eventually buying some Phys Lims off? Can it be done? (Yes, that's a campaign specific ruling, but it should be pointed out that not all Phys Lims need to be permanent effects.


Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea should be considered. Champions had some rules along these lines that might be worth incorporating into the main rules.


Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?

Steve’s Thoughts: There’s some argument to be made that these two Disadvantages are essentially flipsides of the same coin and would work better as one. I’m certainly not convinced yet, but it’s worth thinking about.

What about some of the Ultimate Energy Projector ideas? Or is that too complex for the core book?

[pawsplay]

The other category would be "plot complications" (like Hunted and DNPC). These wouldn't reward you in character points at character creation, but would provide opportunities to earn Hero Points in play.
[/quote]

In Adventure!, you actually paid points for a Nemesis, because fighting your Nemesis could yield extra Willpower. This is similar to things Torg did.

That would mean such "complications" were tied to Hero Points. I don't see that as a problem, though; in a crunchy world, you always have to fight something whether it's your Hunted or something else, so who cares? So it would purely be a storytelling thing.

[Balok]

If Normal Characteristic Maxima goes, then I suggest some text devoted to the mechanical effects of changing the costs of skills, in case the GM wishes to do this to enforce genre conventions.

Like metagaming disadvantages, metagaming characteristics is really a problem of players and GMs, but even though (like Susano's) my group has outgrown that sort of thing, there are groups that haven't and those GMs meed that help. Bringing in GMs is arguably more important than bringing in players, since GMs usually come with a side order of players. So I support efforts to make the GMs job easier, even if they're not particularly relevant to me.

[Roth]

As a note I've been personally been using no more than 125 points for disads for years. 150 was far too much. Official rulings to make it less? I could live with that

[ghost-angel]

I like Complications much better, or even Plot Hooks. Either removes the negative connotations and turns them into positive game aspects.

I don't like tying them to Hero Points as a reward system - mostly because I hate Hero Points.

But, if we remove the idea they give Character Points something should be put in place to Mechanically encourage them in games.

Perhaps some XP Bonus, or other tangible effect. Maybe if you have a Psychological Complication come into play you gain some bonus to a Skill Roll directly related to actions stemming from that Complication.

Or bring in the idea that a GM can simply require a small number of Complications per Character for the Game for both him and the Players to work with. FREX the GM decides he wants 3 Complications per Character to work into his Campaign, everyone is required to take 3 of some kind, any kind. Taking more just adds more flavor.

[Enforcer84]

I like "Complications" as it better sums up what ah... Disadvantages do.

They put players at a possible complication? :)




This works for me and puts Limitations squarely where they belong -- with Powers and the like.


I don't get the whole semantics thing but okay; not really an issue.

[GloryFox]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Ok let’s not get politically correct here. A disadvantage is a disadvantage and that’s all there is to it. Furthermore disadvantages in general help create an aspect of your character that is vitally restrictive in some way. It builds character rather than taking away character.


Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

Yes, but that is just a play on words. It’s still a Physical Disadvantage, Psychological Disadvantage, and Social Disadvantage etc. “Limitation” is just a friendlier word. Not a reason to change the system to 6e.


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

No, they way it is now adds color to the character. Yes everyone takes advantage of this aspect of the game but who really cares. If people don’t want to use them for their games that should be a house rule not a reason to change the entire game system.


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

NCM should be worth more points IMO like 40 or even 50, but hey I’m fine with it as is and I can always change the cost for games I run. Compared to supers who don’t have that disadvantage normals that have this limitations have a severe limitation on their part. It also adds a game flavor for creating normals in a champions setting to begin with. Other genera don’t suffer as much therefore it is not as necessary.


Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?

I think this is open to GM interpretation and I like that approach. The power of the HERO system is it’s ability to adapt to your particular style of game. Adding more options is not a bad idea just not truly necessary.


Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Once again adding more options is not a bad idea to implement. How about a book called Ultimate Disadvantages and keeping it as an optional rule?


Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?

No they have different effects. Susceptibility is a very different word than Dependence. A fish out of water is not Susceptible to Air, it’s Dependant on water for its air. Superman is susceptible to kryptonite but not dependant upon anything in general. It’s a play on words and definitions mean something important.

[JmOz]

NCM should be a campeign option only, further more only a recomended table, not a this is NCM should be given. In some Wuxia campaigns for instance NCM on Dex may be 30... Each setting book would include the NCM table for that setting...

Age should be a disad only in games with NCM

An abuse I have used, the useful DNPC should be gone, the DNPC is a disad, if the character can use said DNPC he should buy it as both a Contact (or rarely a follower) and as a disad

So Bats has DNPC Bird-boy, and follower Bird-boy. It is understood that because of the DNPC sometimes Bird-boy the follower will be unavailble, and that he will at times create problems...

[Pattern Ghost]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is worth considering. While they can hinder a character, Disadvantages’ real role is to provide plot hooks for the GM to get characters into a story, or to complicate the events of a story. Calling them “Complications” or something of the sort would more accurately describe them, I think. It would also eliminate any possible confusion among people who wonder why Advantages and Disadvantages aren’t “opposites.”


I agree. The first time I picked up Champions (It was the edition with Marksman swinging into action on the cover, whichever that one was.) and saw the Disadvantages section, I immediately thought, "Cool, they have a game mechanic to encourage roleplaying!" Expressing Disadvantages in such as way as to encourage their use as a way to fully define a character is good IMO.


Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think so. A Limitation is an entirely separate game mechanic, and using the term in Disadvantages may be confusing to some people. Calling them Physical Disadvantage, Psychological Disadvantage, and the like makes more sense.


Cleaning up the terminology sounds like a good idea.


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.

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.


(Every form of emphasis available added by me.)
YES! Trying to come up with 150 points of valid Disadvantages is a huge pain. This would also curtail some gaming of the Disadvantage system.


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.


Agreed. I'd venture to say scrapping the whole Characteristic Maxima concept as a whole would be worth looking at. It's just clunky and counterproductive. Considering it generally only comes into play in a Heroic level game, and the costs aren't prohibitive to gain a few more stat points at double point cost, scrapping it and using GM judgement with some sound GM advice seems appealing to me.


Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I wrote up an article about this in DH #25, and I’ll probably implement that expansion in the 6E rules.


I haven't read the article, but more predefined options may be good.


Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea should be considered. Champions had some rules along these lines that might be worth incorporating into the main rules.


I agree, but maybe edit those for length?


Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?

Steve’s Thoughts: There’s some argument to be made that these two Disadvantages are essentially flipsides of the same coin and would work better as one. I’m certainly not convinced yet, but it’s worth thinking about.

I'm not seeing that one. Smashing them together may yield a clunky result.

[Half Baked]

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

This is the only important issue that Steve raised about Disadvantages that I have a strong opinion on. Count me in for a very strong YES PLEASE on the first option of rewarding characters with something other than Character Points. It is one of the major tools in improving the roleplaying element in games that 'modern' rpg's have introduced. If the Hero System is attempting to market itself as being a 'toolkit' then it needs to add that as an element.

Disadvantages were a highly original and influential addition to RPGs twenty-five or so years ago that moved systems from being small scale wargames towards roleplaying. However, other tools have come along since then and the Hero System should embrace them as legimate options in its toolkit at the very least. My feeling is that Disadvantages themselves were not a defining characteristic of the Hero System, but that addressing the issue of a character being more than its combat stats was. If a better system of doing that comes along then it should be used.

The reasons I feel a non-character point reward system is better would be summed up as follows:

1. Rewards are directly related to the disadvantage/complication arising in game. It is commonsense that a reward is a more effective motivator when timely compared to the sacrifice to earn it. Everyone has had experiences of a player who takes a disadvantage, spends the points and then whines about when it actually affects him in game. Sure, you can say well I won't play with person again, but a system that attempts to address it first is even better.

2. Rewards are directly related to how often the disadvantage affects them in the game rather than an estimate at the beginning. No more players feel hard done by because their 8- Hunted turns up more often than another PC. Just name the Hunted and get a reward every time the GM has them appear and complicate your PC's life.

3. Getting bored with a particular disadvantage? Just negotiate with the GM that you don't do stories about your Secret Identity for a while. Easy to do and no need to change your character sheet.


4. It can help genre simulation by granting rewards for particularly 'in genre' actions. Swashbuckling and Superhero games can particularly benefit from this.

5. It can be very adaptable in supporting the type of game you want to play, from simulation to narrative. It is up to the GM and players how it is implemented in game. If you want the 'shared-story' experience then the GM rewards the players for working a disadvantage into the game. However, if you into a game where the GM sets the scene and then the dice fall where they may it can be used by the GM granting rewards when the disadvantages are imposed upon the PC's due to the nature of the scenario and the elements the GM decided was in it.

6. Under the current Disadvantage system there is very little incentive for players to resolve some of their disadvantages during the game. They only have to replace it with another one if they want to retain parity with their character.

7. Most of all I love the freedom as a GM to screw the players over in the interests of developing a story. In my experience they are much more likely to go along with plot twists and difficulties if they feel they will receive an end product.


You can still keep the old Disadvantage system as an option for players who want to use it, but I just think that a 'Reward When Complication Arises' system is a more effective way of encouraging good roleplaying and stories the GM and PCs all enjoy. That is just my opinion though and I'm sure many will disagree.

[nexus]

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

This is the only important issue that Steve raised about Disadvantages that I have a strong opinion on. Count me in for a very strong YES PLEASE on the first option of rewarding characters with something other than Character Points. It is one of the major tools in improving the roleplaying element in games that 'modern' rpg's have introduced. If the Hero System is attempting to market itself as being a 'toolkit' then it needs to add that as an element.

Disadvantages were a highly original and influential addition to RPGs twenty-five or so years ago that moved systems from being small scale wargames towards roleplaying. However, other tools have come along since then and the Hero System should embrace them as legimate options in its toolkit at the very least. My feeling is that Disadvantages themselves were not a defining characteristic of the Hero System, but that addressing the issue of a character being more than its combat stats was. If a better system of doing that comes along then it should be used.

The reasons I feel a non-character point reward system is better would be summed up as follows:

1. Rewards are directly related to the disadvantage/complication arising in game. It is commonsense that a reward is a more effective motivator when timely compared to the sacrifice to earn it. Everyone has had experiences of a player who takes a disadvantage, spends the points and then whines about when it actually affects him in game. Sure, you can say well I won't play with person again, but a system that attempts to address it first is even better.

2. Rewards are directly related to how often the disadvantage affects them in the game rather than an estimate at the beginning. No more players feel hard done by because their 8- Hunted turns up more often than another PC. Just name the Hunted and get a reward every time the GM has them appear and complicate your PC's life.

3. Getting bored with a particular disadvantage? Just negotiate with the GM that you don't do stories about your Secret Identity for a while. Easy to do and no need to change your character sheet.


4. It can help genre simulation by granting rewards for particularly 'in genre' actions. Swashbuckling and Superhero games can particularly benefit from this.

5. It can be very adaptable in supporting the type of game you want to play, from simulation to narrative. It is up to the GM and players how it is implemented in game. If you want the 'shared-story' experience then the GM rewards the players for working a disadvantage into the game. However, if you into a game where the GM sets the scene and then the dice fall where they may it can be used by the GM granting rewards when the disadvantages are imposed upon the PC's due to the nature of the scenario and the elements the GM decided was in it.

6. Under the current Disadvantage system there is very little incentive for players to resolve some of their disadvantages during the game. They only have to replace it with another one if they want to retain parity with their character.

7. Most of all I love the freedom as a GM to screw the players over in the interests of developing a story. In my experience they are much more likely to go along with plot twists and difficulties if they feel they will receive an end product.


You can still keep the old Disadvantage system as an option for players who want to use it, but I just think that a 'Reward When Complication Arises' system is a more effective way of encouraging good roleplaying and stories the GM and PCs all enjoy. That is just my opinion though and I'm sure many will disagree.

From the responses in this thread it seems your opinion is more popular than you think.

I prefer the standard means of alloting Disadvantages. IMO, it's simpler and there isn't a sense that the GM is "gypping" one player by using their disads more than another PCs (so that player gets more benefits). I'll admit its in part and emotional attachment as well but I shy away from other games with that kind of disadvantage system.

One issue is what would you give players in exchange? Hero Points is one answer but what if the game isn't using Hero Points? Experience? That's basically the same thing as awarding it up front just spread out over time. Skill bonuses? That would be something else to keep track off. I can't think of an easy solution.

That said I wouldn't mind seeing it as an optional system of Disadvantages.

[Half Baked]

I prefer the standard means of alloting Disadvantages. IMO, it's simpler and there isn't a sense that the GM is "gypping" one player by using their disads more than another PCs (so that player gets more benefits). I'll admit its in part and emotional attachment as well but I shy away from other games with that kind of disadvantage system.


There is still the sense of that the GM is "gypping" one player by having their disadvantages turn up more often. Such as one player's hunted turning up more often than another even though they are both 8-. Or a PC with with Code Against Killing that always seems to be in a situation where they have a hard choice about letting someone die while the other players shrug their shoulders. Ultimately any disadvantage/complication system has a great deal of GM discretion and runs the risk of player dissatisfaction.



One issue is what would you give players in exchange? Hero Points is one answer but what if the game isn't using Hero Points? Experience? That's basically the same thing as awarding it up front just spread out over time. Skill bonuses? That would be something else to keep track off. I can't think of an easy solution.


I'd like to see something similar to Mutants and Masterminds Hero Points, where they can be used for one off benefits similar to luck. One of the great things it can be used for in a superhero game is for stunting one-off powers that are not in an MP, but conceivably could be. Instead of the power skill they spend a Hero Point to gain slot in their MP for the scene.

One way of doing it is you spend a Hero Point to gain X points for a scene, let's say 5. A player could use it gain Luck for a scene or an additional OCV or a slot in a multipower or a talent or a perk or a skill. If you want them to less effective then reduce the temporary points per Hero Point.

Just an idea of thought of on the fly.

[nexus]

There is still the sense of that the GM is "gypping" one player by having their disadvantages turn up more often. Such as one player's hunted turning up more often than another even though they are both 8-. Or a PC with with Code Against Killing that always seems to be in a situation where they have a hard choice about letting someone die while the other players shrug their shoulders. Ultimately any disadvantage/complication system has a great deal of GM discretion and runs the risk of player dissatisfaction.


I can what you're saying but experience wise I've only seen it come up in the "post reward" method since award is directly tied to frequency of appearance and some Disadvantages have an edge over in that case. The most frequent problem I've seen in the "pre award" system is Disadvantages not coming up enough. That's purely anecdotal though.


I'd like to see something similar to Mutants and Masterminds Hero Points, where they can be used for one off benefits similar to luck. One of the great things it can be used for in a superhero game is for stunting one-off powers that are not in an MP, but conceivably could be. Instead of the power skill they spend a Hero Point to gain slot in their MP for the scene.

One way of doing it is you spend a Hero Point to gain X points for a scene, let's say 5. A player could use it gain Luck for a scene or an additional OCV or a slot in a multipower or a talent or a perk or a skill. If you want them to less effective then reduce the temporary points per Hero Point.

Just an idea of thought of on the fly.

I prefer the Power skill personally but objectively that would require Hero Points to be a mandatory part of the system which is something some players don't want. What would they do?

[steamteck]

me.




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

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.


.

Funny that's what I used to do in my homebrew game. Net effect was the NPCs tended to be way more fleshed out than the PCs until I made everyone use the " Central Casting" background books. When I went back to HERO people got more interesting again. My guys tend to build until they're done which gives a big range for us but having no reward at all for this stuff at creation does decrease disadvantages which is NOT desirable in our game. Some players take a lower power level but fewer weaknesses or problems and others go the other way. Both work fine but the higher "complication " folks tend to be more interesting.

Some additional reward if a player plays his disadvantage well like a "hero point" would be nice though.

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?For newbies' sake, I'd go along with this.Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?I'd go the opposite direction -- change the name of Limitations to Disadvantages. It may confuse some veterans (including myself), but there are others already doing this and it's reinforced by the grammar-based assumption that Advantages and Disadvantages are opposites.Q: Should we change the way Disadvantages reward you for taking/using them?I'm actually pretty happy with the system as it is, or at least I've never had much problem with the issues you cite. I do find some appeal to the "spend points on Complications" idea you bring up.

Another possibility would be a variation on one you suggest: require fewer points in Disadvantages, but make each Disadvantage worth fewer points in the end. For example, you could structure DNPC and Hunted so that, by default, the DNPC/Hunter always shows up, and the appearance roll is handled as an Activation Roll.

And this brings up a pet issue of mine regarding Disadvantages. I've frequently come across situations where a Disadvantage should have a Limitation, but the rules don't allow for that. It comes up most often in superheroic stuff, but I've had fantasy and sci-fi stuff where this would work as well. An example is a high-tech battlesuit whose metal structure makes the wearer Vulnerable to electrical and magnetic attacks -- this could be done with a Limitation on Armor (and some others of the battlesuit's abilities; but which ones?), but would work much more smoothly by simply adding a Vulnerability with OIF. It also helps represent situations where, for example, a Hunter is really after the character's magic talisman.

Besides the Activation Rolls for DNPC and Hunted this method could handle Accidental Change rolls (giving the added benefit of easily allowing for rolls other than 8, 11, or 14); Small/Limited Group modifiers for Distinctive Feature, Reputation, and Social Limitation; limited circumstances in which Unluck kicks in; and other matters.Q: Should Age/Normal Characteristic Maxima be removed as a Disadvantage?While I like them personally, I can understand the call to remove them. Maybe, given that the text is barely over a column long, you could keep them as something optional?Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. I wrote up an article about this in DH #25, and I’ll probably implement that expansion in the 6E rules.I don't recall the article specifically, but I remember liking it when I read it. If you do make the change, I hope you do something similar with Psychological and Social Limitations.Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?Like you, I think it's worth considering, especially with the Champions material. I'd also like to see a smoother handling of allergies (hay fever, food allergies, drug allergies) using either Susceptibility or Physical Limitation.Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?From a mechanical standpoint, I can go either way on this. I think it would be a good idea, though, in terms of saving text space.

[GloryFox]

An abuse I have used, the useful DNPC should be gone, the DNPC is a disad, if the character can use said DNPC he should buy it as both a Contact (or rarely a follower) and as a disad

So Bats has DNPC Bird-boy, and follower Bird-boy. It is understood that because of the DNPC sometimes Bird-boy the follower will be unavailble, and that he will at times create problems...

Is this the abuse you are speaking of?

Dependent NPC: 14- (Slightly Less Powerful than the PC; Useful Non-combat Position or Skills) 10 points?

Woah, that's a whole 10 points to be worried about. I'm sure a creative GM can come up with ways of getting bird boy into danger. It's not like bird boy is controlled by the player after all. Besides there is some great advice on how to handle DNPC's in general, if it's not a disadvantage then don't let the player gain a benefit from it. One of my players had this "disadvantage" and called it "Super Powered Medic Man". Trust me it was an abuse, however another player had "Super Powered Wife" and boy was he annoyed over and over again. It was the 10 points + disadvantage from Hell and aptly spent the 10 points getting rid of it. (The disadvantage not the wife)

I think you should leave it alone as it's really a GM call IMO.

[archermoo]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Probably a good idea, though I've never played FtF with anyone that had an issue with it.

Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

Yes, please!

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

Another yes please! ;) I very much like the idea of giving players something other than Character Points for adding plot hooks to their characters. Heck, most of the people I've played with would still take Disads even if they didn't get any points for them. :)

I personally like the idea of using Hero Point rewards when the Disad comes up for the "something else". Most importantly I think it should be something temporary, not something that will overall make the character more powerful, but instead something that can give them an advantage once.

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

NCM should certainly only exist as a campaign level option, though I could see Age continuing to be useful in games where NCM is inforced. I also think that changing the name would be useful. The current name tends to have people assume that Characteristics beyond the NCM doubling point are superhuman.

Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?

Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?

Yes, have some. :D

[BobGreenwade]

Another long-standing thought re: Disadvantages:

Currently the rule on getting new Disadvantages during play is that the character does not get actual Character Points for them. I've always played that the character does get points, but must spend those points on something meant to deal with the new Disadvantage.

For example, suppose a character really ticks off PSI in some major way, and becomes Hunted by them. He gets 15 points for the privilege, and can spend those points on new stuff as long as it has to do with the fact that he's Hunted by PSI. He might study heavily on PSI's background and get a KS: PSI; add a pip or two of EGO; upgrade his power armor's helmet to include Mental Defense and/or a Mental Powers Detector; find a new Contact who knows about PSI and can help him deal with them; and so forth, but he probably couldn't increase his Flight, add a new Martial Arts maneuver, increase his Wealth, or buy down his Unluck. (These things are potentially justifiable with the right stretch of logic, but unlikely.)

I've had three or four occasions where this has actually happened, and it's always been beneficial to the game rather than abusive.

[ajackson]

I can what you're saying but experience wise I've only seen it come up in the "post reward" method since award is directly tied to frequency of appearance and some Disadvantages have an edge over in that case. The most frequent problem I've seen in the "pre award" system is Disadvantages not coming up enough. That's purely anecdotal though.
I've seen it come up. The bigger problem, however, is that there's often no scaling for severity. Just how significant a negative effect do you need to get before you deserve a hero point? Also, how do you handle more severe effects?

A method that gave a clearer definition of what a negative effect is, and which might allocate more than one hero point, would appeal to me.

[Gideon]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?This may not be a very useful comment, but to be completely honest I don't care about the semantics of terminology.

Call them whatever you wish. I have no real care either way.
Q: Should we change the way Disadvantages reward you for taking/using them?

I'm not sure. I really have to think about this one, a lot.

I have never been in a Hero game where "hero points" were used. I have, however, never been a huge fan of how drama/hero/action points have worked in other games I play. Because of this, I think it best that they are made an optional rule, but put in the main book.

On a similar note, I don't like the idea of lessening the amount of disads a character needs/should take dramatically. I have had trouble coming up with 150 points worth of disads for characters before (just like most everyone else has at some point or another). However, I know far to many gamers who would abuse the system if they only need 50 points worth of disadvantages (unless of course you drastically lower the worth of disadvantages). Because with the exception of of a couple of hunteds, a DNPC SO, SID, and maybe a single defining psychlim, what do you really need? Oh I don't know... maybe a vulnerability, a rivalry, a bad rep, or a distinctive feature, or maybe dislexia, or a severe allergy to shellfish?

I also think that genre is a huge factor in disadvantages. I play mostly four-color, silver age style super hero games (at least when I play hero). In that type of setting 10-20 points worth of "Code VS Killing" isn't just a standard disad, its an expected disad. On the other hand in a dark champions/ or super-agents game more than 10 points worth of CVK might be rare.Q: Should Age/Normal Characteristic Maxima be removed as a Disadvantage?
I don't see a reason to remove them. I understand the problems with them, so perhaps they shouldn't be disadvantages, but they should stay in the game. The can both be used in any game for any genre. Its just a matter of whether or not the GM wants them to be available.Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?

Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?Definitely. The more options the better. I actually think this goes for all disadvantages in the game.Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?Please no.

Granted I can't stand the dependence disadvantage as written. I wanted a character to be a smoker, and thought: "hey dependence", but I quickly realized that unless he smoked upwards of 10 packs a day the disad would be worth nothing (so I ended up taking it as a 0 pointer, but still I think it could have been worth something.)

[Xotl]

Along the lines of Gideon's reasonable comments regarding smoking and how it doesn't work as a proper Dependence, might I suggest a Quirks Disadvantage of some sort? That is, a 5-point Disadvantage that allows you to build characters with those currently worthless quirks and habits. For instance, chain smoker, chronic drinker, neat freak, superstitious, especially fond of biscuits and whatnot currently have no real effect, but combining five of them into a little package allows people to round out their character and get the points without recourse to the much larger-scale disads currently required. I only suggest five because that's how Hero's point scale works. It would encourage flavour.

[Opal]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?It wouldn't make me cry or anything. While things like that might make the game more palatable to some newbies, it'll also deepen any cultural divide between new and old Hero gamers. Heck, I still call Mental Defense "EGO Defense" half the time, so you know it'll happen.


Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?Or you could could call Limitations 'Disadvantages' since they're the opposites of Advantages, and then leave 'limiation' in all the names of 'Complications.'

Q: Should we change the way Disadvantages reward you for taking/using them?No. Disadvantages give you points, points let you build your Hero the way you want them. Thus, people take disadvantages. Change that substantially, and you risk having characters with few or no disads. Disadvantags are /good/ because they make each character a little more interesting, provide ways for overcoming them that are in concept, and/or tie them in more closely to the campaign background. They're also part and parcel of many genres - though most notably supers, of course. Disadvantages, whether they're chosen 'for the points' or not, /do/ hlep define the character and provide plot hooks to the GM. Giving out points for them (arguably more points than they're strictly 'worth') encourages players to think up such things. To decide, hey, maybe Invulnerable Man shouldn't be invulnerable to /everything/, maybe my Vigilante should have a person he cares about still living, etc...

Disadvantages - like Limitations and Power Frameworks - guide mechanics-oriented gamers into developing thier characters in other dimensions than the strict trade-off of what they spend points on.

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.I think that pushes the game too far over into the 'story mode' of gaming. Hero is a mechanically oriented game, not a touchie-feelie one, and any players attracted to it by the MMORPG, will likely apreciate that. It'd be a great idea of Hero LARP was coming out in 2009, though.

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.Considering things have already gone from 100+100 to 200+150, I don't think throwing points at PCs is really the answer. It's been tried, if it didn't work, why do more of it?

I'm already at the point that I take disadvantages only if I want them, because it's just so easy to build a perfectly effective character on less than 350 points. Well, unless it's skill-based, of course.


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.Thing is, a lot of players only round out thier concept if they /do/ have to strain a bit at it. Otherwise, they'd just churn out one flawless paragon who conformed to the local RoX or point caps and had no disadvantages, or personality of any kind, for that matter.

“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.I suppose if you give characters 350 points to spend on thier character, and 100 points that they /must/ spend on Complications, that'd work out about the same as 250 + 100 in disads.



Q: Should Age/Normal Characteristic Maxima be removed as a Disadvantage?
No! These are great disads. They give you very real guidelines to building a 'non-powered' character in a powered game. That doesn't just help certain character concepts, it creates a very real touchstone for supers, as well. Since NCM became official, I've seen the incidence of 'DEX/SPD inflation' moderate a lot when I go to conventions. Used to be, I'd take my DEX 18/SPD 4 highly-trained, well equipped 'super' into a game, and I'd be going after the 'Slow' brick character who had a 23/5 because, well, /everybody/ had at least that, so it was 'slow.' Now, people realize that if you don't have 'super human agility' in-concept, you don't need to take a 23 DEX just because it's slightly more efficient than a 20.

It's also a great tool for a GM. Set Char Maxima, and you keep stats under control. Allow it as a disad, and you make the 'normal' character in a super-hero game that little bit more viable. Disallow it as a disad, and you push the game towards the higher end, sorta a 'no normals allowed' sign.

Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?Sure. Dependence on Air, Susceptibilty to drowning, whatever - you fail to meet the requirements of the, um, Complication, you take damage.

[Opal]

I also think that changing the name would be useful. The current name tends to have people assume that Characteristics beyond the NCM doubling point are superhuman.
IMHO, that's a feature, not a bug. While it is possible for a normal to pay those double points, and thus levels beyond the maximum are merely 'preternatural' or 'transhuman' rather than 'superhuman,' the inference is still very valuable in that it tones down stat inflation. Once a player is confident that his 30 DEX really is increadibly superhumanly fast, he won't be nearly as tempted to buy it up to 32 with exp, rather than pick up a level or as skill he's been putting off...

Before we had NCM, it was not at all unusually to see groups where the 'slow' characters had SPD 5 or 6, and DEX of 23 or 26.

[tiger]

My personal feeling is changing the disadvantage system is taking away one of the unique things about the hero system.

A lot of the arguments listed seem to me to be a player problem more than a system problem. If anything a sidebar or explanation of possible alternative methods would be in order. After all, it is call a "toolkit", so there could easily be more than one disadvantage tool in it.

[archermoo]

IMHO, that's a feature, not a bug. While it is possible for a normal to pay those double points, and thus levels beyond the maximum are merely 'preternatural' or 'transhuman' rather than 'superhuman,' the inference is still very valuable in that it tones down stat inflation. Once a player is confident that his 30 DEX really is increadibly superhumanly fast, he won't be nearly as tempted to buy it up to 32 with exp, rather than pick up a level or as skill he's been putting off...

Before we had NCM, it was not at all unusually to see groups where the 'slow' characters had SPD 5 or 6, and DEX of 23 or 26.

Except that the system already provides a definition of at least where in the CU the line between "normal" and "super" is. And it isn't at the NCM doubling point. It isn't currently, and to the best of my knowledge never was, intended as a "beyond here only Superpowered characters can go".

[Zane_Marlowe]

A couple thoughts about disadvantages.

First, I don't think terminology matters much, but I do think there are distinct concepts at work in the disadvantages. The first concept is something that actually hampers the character, and physical and psych limits have a tendency to do this pretty clearly. The second concept is plot hooks that encourage roleplaying, and social disadvantages currently do this pretty well.

Now I don't care to categorize which disadvantages fit into which of the two above categories, but the point is that disadvantages in some cases aren't just plot hooks for the GM (though they could be) because they DO disadvantage the player all the time. Blindness or compulsive lying might be examples of this. GM Plot hooks can be either positive or negative since the GM can use contacts or talents to draw a player as easily as any existing disadvantages.

In keeping with this thought, I'd suggest that disadvantages be revised for finer granularity, especially physical and psychological disadvantages. In the powers discussion, Steve suggested that at one point there was a suggestion to simplify powers to attack, defense, sense, and movement, and while I agree that those are not good choices for powers, I do think that we might use those concepts to make finer grained distinctions in these broader kinds of disadvantages. Physical disadvantages might have varying values according to whether they restrict sensing or movement ability. Anyway, I'm not the speculative genius here, but I want to point out that these can be clearly disadvantageous in addition to whatever their value as plot hooks.

Because genuine disads might be a narrower category, I'd support the lower points allocation for disads in the points split between base and disads at character generation. Again, the specifics I leave to the rules geniuses.

Finally, I'd like to agree with those who have suggested a kind of in-game payoff for disadvantages since they don't affect a player all the time. I'd suggest that some disadvantages do affect a player all the time, and if they don't, then they might belong to a category plot hooks that cost or payoff only in-game. Incidentally, I think bad luck and good luck should work this way as a kind of tradeoff between players and GM. Hero Action Points (I like "Hero Points" better) license the GM to take advantage of the players at his whim in specific ways.

Whew, that's about it. Thanks!

[steamteck]

No. Disadvantages give you points, points let you build your Hero the way you want them. Thus, people take disadvantages. Change that substantially, and you risk having characters with few or no disads. Disadvantags are /good/ because they make each character a little more interesting, provide ways for overcoming them that are in concept, and/or tie them in more closely to the campaign background. They're also part and parcel of many genres - though most notably supers, of course. Disadvantages, whether they're chosen 'for the points' or not, /do/ hlep define the character and provide plot hooks to the GM. Giving out points for them (arguably more points than they're strictly 'worth') encourages players to think up such things. To decide, hey, maybe Invulnerable Man shouldn't be invulnerable to /everything/, maybe my Vigilante should have a person he cares about still living, etc...





No! These are great disads. They give you very real guidelines to building a 'non-powered' character in a powered game. That doesn't just help certain character concepts, it creates a very real touchstone for supers, as well. Since NCM became official, I've seen the incidence of 'DEX/SPD inflation' moderate a lot when I go to conventions. Used to be, I'd take my DEX 18/SPD 4 highly-trained, well equipped 'super' into a game, and I'd be going after the 'Slow' brick character who had a 23/5 because, well, /everybody/ had at least that, so it was 'slow.' Now, people realize that if you don't have 'super human agility' in-concept, you don't need to take a 23 DEX just because it's slightly more efficient than a 20.

It's also a great tool for a GM. Set Char Maxima, and you keep stats under control. Allow it as a disad, and you make the 'normal' character in a super-hero game that little bit more viable. Disallow it as a disad, and you push the game towards the higher end, sorta a 'no normals allowed' sign.




Wonderful points about disadvantages and NCM. You've managed to articulate what I never quite could on NCM particularly.Exactly how its used in my game.

[rjcurrie]

I think changing the name of Disadvantages is a good idea. I'm not sure that we want to use Complications because that is what M&M uses -- do we really want to give them the satisfaction of saying that we're copying them? :) But we need something more positive sounding to properly depict their role in the game -- perhaps "Plot Hooks" might be best or "Story Hooks" or "Character Hooks" or maybe just "Hooks". Similarly, replacing "Limitation" in the names of these would avoid confusion with Power Limitations.

I say we want something more positive to get away from the idea that in HERO (and GURPS for that matter) that you can only get an effective character by being a "one-eyed hunch-backed acrophobic midget who is hunted by everyone who isn't in the adventuring party and flies into a rage when ever he sees the color purple".

As for rewarding the characters for these Hooks, perhaps characters could be given character points at creation time and provide optional rules for campaigns that use Hero Points.

I would recommend lowering the Hook point total needed for characters, probably to about 2/3 of what they are now. For example, a 350 point character would be built on 250 points +100 points in Hooks and a 150 point character would be built on 100 points +50 points in Hooks.

Finally, I would play down die rolls in Hooks such as Hunteds or DNPCs and just state the frequencies. The rules could make mention of the possible use of die rolls to determine whether a Hook comes into play, but recommend that the frequency actually be used as a rough guide for the GM as to how often they should use that Hook in a story. I would also recommend allowing characters to rewrite their Hooks during play, assuming the appropriate story is played out to explain the changes. After all, it is fairly common in continuing heroic fiction (such as comics or TV shows) for a character's Hooks to change when there is a change in writer (or writers) or when the writer (or writers) simply decides to take the character in a new direction.

[rjcurrie]

It's also a great tool for a GM. Set Char Maxima, and you keep stats under control. Allow it as a disad, and you make the 'normal' character in a super-hero game that little bit more viable. Disallow it as a disad, and you push the game towards the higher end, sorta a 'no normals allowed' sign.

If you want it to serve this role then you need to expand the way NCM works in a supers game. Currently, you can take NCM and have your normal characteristics limited by the disadvantage, but you can then turn around and put on a suit of powered armor that gives you 60 STR, 30 DEX, and a SPD of 7.

[Kdansky]

Another approach: If all disadvantages would only give 20% of their current points and base value is 350, then your current 100 give you 20 more points. And if someone else only has 50 disads, he's at 360 instead of our 370. The difference is marginal, but still there.

NCM: Either a campaign limit, or not. But you cannot take it! You usually get points without a limitation (if your character has low stats) or you don't take it (because having 30 dex and picking NCM is really not sensible).

[Balabanto]

Instead of "Complications" which carries with it the notion of being "Complicated," why don't we call them...

Conception Points.

That's right, now these things that you do are a part of your character's CONCEPT, and that idea may be better for people who are hardcore roleplayers to wrap around, and get them away from the numerological ideas of the system.

It forces people to say "What is my concept about?" rather than "How can I complicate my concept?"

This will produce better builds and better roleplayed characters.

[Enforcer84]

I've never used NCM, not even in non Supers games.
People who've read my character write ups are probably not surprised. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Keep the standard rules for disadvantages but make the Hero point reward system optional as part of the toolkitting approach. Going the "compelling" route would add a layer of Shared Narrative Control that some groups aren't comfortable with but could make a good option for that that want it.

I also wouldn't mind lower amounts of Disads required. It would mean less scraping for points.

I like the current system. I'd rather see the system remain pretty much as is, but with more discussion of varying the points in disadvantages required (if your games seem to require scraping to get the right number) and other uses for disad's also discussed. Keep it a toolkit.

If we go the Hero Point route, I'd still like to see a "max disad's" level. I don't want players scrambling for every possible disad so they can get more Hero points. But then, if the Supers max is 150, we will still have the same level of scraping to max out options for getting more hero points, won't we?

Overall, I don't think the proposal solves the concern raised.

Another long-standing thought re: Disadvantages:

Currently the rule on getting new Disadvantages during play is that the character does not get actual Character Points for them. I've always played that the character does get points, but must spend those points on something meant to deal with the new Disadvantage.

I would like to see the system discuss options for disad's gained in play, and other changes to Disad's. I like the idea that disad's can change over time. That Hunted has played itself out? I bet in-game events provide a selection of possible new Hunted's, so let's revitalize that tired old Disad. DNPC has moved on? Maybe the character has picked up a related Psychological (Fear of Commitment, perhaps?). Don't leave the choices "keep the same disad's forever or buy them off and end up with less or none".

I agree with changing to Complications and replacing Limitation in the description. "These complicate the character's life" seems less "Player vs GM" than "these disadvantage the character.

Finally, DITCH NCM. I see this taken only when the character does not have stats which would attract a penalty anyway. So I see Mentalist characters with NCM, but never a Brick or Martial Artist. If you get a 20 point disad for "characteristics above X cost double", there should be a similar disad for "mental powers cost double" or "non-fire based powers cost double" or similar restrictions on how the character spends his points. You don't get 20 points for not buying your stats up - you don't spend as many points on stats.

Similarly, in NCM games, I see age used by characters who want higher limits on their mental stats, not those who suffer from lower limits on physical stats.

Finally, in games where NCM is a default, the ability to circumvent it by putting limitations on characteristics should be eliminated.

[Gideon]

Ok, I have been reading the thread, and I realized that I seem to have a different concept of how certain character disadvantages do/should work.

I don't like the concept of "all disadvantages should be considered plot hooks". I also don't generally like the idea of "You get a reward when the disadvantage comes into play".

The reason behind this is that I see some disadvantages as always (or almost always) affecting a character. I have never been in a game where a plot was specifically written dealing with a character's Secret Identity, but having an SID comes up constantly in the games I play (almost every game session for some of them).

So how would a disadvantage that is a disadvantage, but doesn't have a specific plot revolve around it, or comes into play on a consistent basis (IE: blind, deaf, or dyslexic) work if the system was changed to an occurrence = reward system?

I understand the complaint of "why does your hunted come up more than my hunted?", but on a similar note, what happens in an occurrence = reward system when 2 or more characters in the game have the same hunted? Do they all get the reward? And what happens to the 2-3 people in the group who don't share that hunted? It seems to me that they would inadvetently suffer because they didn't pick hunted X.

The same kind of arguments could be had for rivalries (especially if the rival is another PC at the table), and bad reputation.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've never used NCM, not even in non Supers games.
People who've read my character write ups are probably not surprised. :)

I was one of the first people to rant against the Defender Exploit here on the Hero boards. I was pretty darn ranty about it, too.

[Mystic Mouse]

One of the largest problems I have had with the Hero system was the almost ubiquitous need for a character to come up with Disadvantages. As a player, you need them to compete (even though my friends still try to stress that they are optional); as a GM, you become reigned in to plotting campaigns that take advantage of them. Because, as we all know, Disadvantages that do not come in to play are worthless, and you should get no points for "pointless" Disadvantages. This odd balance also seemed both complicated to juggle and to balance for the interests of me and all my players.

I have often shyed away from Hero for this reason, although I often concede that on almost every merit for a system, Hero is the greatest system of rules I have encountered for any genre, let alone being "universal". What has bothered me is mix of Base, Disad, and Experience points with broadly everlapping power levels, primarily due to the immense point value of Disadvantages.

My solution has been to either play other systems where I, either as a player or a GM, and others in my campaigns do not have to utilize the concept of disadvatages at all, or to a much lesser degree. I think a good compromise can be found by looking at exactly what role any given Disadvantage may take. For example, a true disadvantage is something that does not necessarily have to be planned for, it is an inherent weakness or flaw of the character; others (we'll call them "complications" for now) are plot related vehicles and have no innate use while engaged within a particular plot line (whether inspired by a complication or not).

Calling upon the dozens of sytems I have used, and upon the growing evolution of modern rules systems, I would propose spliting Disadvantages into true combat and power based disadvantages, and non-combat complications.

As to implementation and naming conventions, I would suggest that complications be called just that, whereas Limitations shoud refer to combat and instance related disadvantages, and Disadvatages should refer to what are currently refered to as Power Limitations. This gives us a spectrum of benefits and hinderences for our characters, as follows:

Characteristics

Skills
Skill Modifiers (I would move Skill Levels, Penalty Skill Levels, and the whole Combat Skills section into the roll of Skill Modifiers)

Perquisites (Perks)
Complications

Talents, Powers, and Frameworks
Power Modifiers (Advantages & Disadvantages)

and finally combat, instance, and interactive Character Limitations to balance Characteristics and provide detrimental situational effects.

This would round out both combat and non-combat situations, as well as provide a certain verisimilitude amongst the various sets of abilities. Reducing Complications to an anolog of Perks gives a point value cut as well. This would allow a character to be built with flavor and nuance, without having to dominate his concept with traditional "Disads", just to get the necessary points. This would also eliminate the need to add another game mechanic introducing special rewards for having complications appear in the story.

As an aside (this might better be placed in the rules area), I do like the introduction of optional "Hero Points" like Pulp Hero and many other games on the market. However, I generally use them only when I am being particularly narrative and want to put set-backs in the characters way or resolve a scene without unnecessary die rolls. This type of reward generally disuages any bickering that might result because a player feels "slighted" in some way with the result of the narrative. I like using "GM Tokens" that I hand out to players. They, in return, cash them in when they need some dramtic effect (that may or may not be covered within the rules).

Not to be too long winded, but on the subject of altering character point allotment and power level, having better delineated power levels would be helpful. Reducing the "need" for Disadvantages would truly place them as optional, at which the combination of Base points and Disad points becomes less important. A simple allotment of character points (Base Points), based on initial power level, could be used without having to include a Disad maximum could easily be implemented with this new structure; as Limitations, in and of themselves, would truly be such a handicap that no player building a "palyable" character would be able to load up on them without crippling his character in most settings. This would still allow you to build a truly handicapped character though; numerous times thoughout comics and novels you find truly exceptional characters that are balanced by crippling flaws, and these options would also allow for that type of "dramatic" play.

As a character increases in Character Points by gainings Experience (just another word for adding character points), their power levels would naturally rise by association. This would simplify comparing characters to either each other and to their antagonists (you just compare Character Point totals; no need for trying to figure out if ones total points are based on Disadvatages that are useless to the game session at hand).

Hope this was useful in some way.
I look forward to seeing what 6th Edition can do.

[watson]

Overall, I like the way you're going with Disadvantages, Steve.

There are a couple of areas that need to be looked at with regards to Disadvantages. First, it's relatively easy to take TONS of Hunteds at the 14- level, or max this out - it's a very "safe" thing to do, since in my over-20-years-as-Champions player/gm experience, GM's almost never want to deal with hunteds Every. Single. Game.

Secondly, let's talk about Berzerk and Enraged. I don't like these Disadvantages because you end up losing control of your character. Both have quite specific rules as to what your character does when he goes enraged or berzerk.

Frankly, losing control of your character is not fun.

My suggestion: turn Berzerk and Enraged into Psychological Limitations. This can leave the stimulus the same (Rarr! Hulk hate Rabbits!) but leave the RESPONSE in the control of the player - which allows for far more interesting, creative, and FUN results other than "must attack with most powerful attack form until dead or unconscious."

Also: Consider merging Rivalry into one of the other categories. Usually, Rivalry is a psychological thing (I MUST be better than the Joneses) or a social thing. Also, my suggestion would be to avoid encouraging rivalry between PC's - some groups can deal with inter-party conflict in a mature manner. Most (in my experience) have trouble with that concept - taking away the bonus for having a rivalry with another PC might help, in some small way, to keep things more fun.

[steamteck]

There are a couple of areas that need to be looked at with regards to Disadvantages. First, it's relatively easy to take TONS of Hunteds at the 14- level, or max this out - it's a very "safe" thing to do, since in my over-20-years-as-Champions player/gm experience, GM's almost never want to deal with hunteds Every. Single. Game.





No one would ever do that in my game. I energetically heed the PC cry to be hunted. No one every takes a 14/ hunted unless they want it to dominate the characters life. even 11/ can be brutal that's 1/2 the bloody time. I Loves me my hunteds and Arch enemies.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've played in multiple games where there's no limit on how many Psych Limits you can take, because the GM can always mess with Psych Limits.

[steamteck]

I've played in multiple games where there's no limit on how many Psych Limits you can take, because the GM can always mess with Psych Limits.


those are my favorites the meat of defining the character.

[BobGreenwade]

I would like to see the system discuss options for disad's gained in play, and other changes to Disad's. I like the idea that disad's can change over time. That Hunted has played itself out? I bet in-game events provide a selection of possible new Hunted's, so let's revitalize that tired old Disad. DNPC has moved on? Maybe the character has picked up a related Psychological (Fear of Commitment, perhaps?). Don't leave the choices "keep the same disad's forever or buy them off and end up with less or none".That's already in place. See 5ER page 328.

[BobGreenwade]

Overall, I like the way you're going with Disadvantages, Steve.

There are a couple of areas that need to be looked at with regards to Disadvantages. First, it's relatively easy to take TONS of Hunteds at the 14- level, or max this out - it's a very "safe" thing to do, since in my over-20-years-as-Champions player/gm experience, GM's almost never want to deal with hunteds Every. Single. Game.This is a matter of GM control. If a GM doesn't want to deal with too many Hunters, then he should nix that aspect of the character. Also, some further guidance on how to easily work with Hunters may be in order.Secondly, let's talk about Berzerk and Enraged. I don't like these Disadvantages because you end up losing control of your character. Both have quite specific rules as to what your character does when he goes enraged or berzerk.

Frankly, losing control of your character is not fun.

My suggestion: turn Berzerk and Enraged into Psychological Limitations. This can leave the stimulus the same (Rarr! Hulk hate Rabbits!) but leave the RESPONSE in the control of the player - which allows for far more interesting, creative, and FUN results other than "must attack with most powerful attack form until dead or unconscious."Conversely, someone else posited recently that Berserk/Enraged could be expanded to include other uncontrolled behaviors such as panic, obsession, or even sexual passion. I like that proposal much better; for yours, I'd just say that if you don't like the Disadvantage then don't take it.Also: Consider merging Rivalry into one of the other categories. Usually, Rivalry is a psychological thing (I MUST be better than the Joneses) or a social thing. Also, my suggestion would be to avoid encouraging rivalry between PC's - some groups can deal with inter-party conflict in a mature manner. Most (in my experience) have trouble with that concept - taking away the bonus for having a rivalry with another PC might help, in some small way, to keep things more fun.Here I agree with the proposal to make Rivalry just a part of Psychological Limitation.

And if it is kept separate, let's ditch the "Rival is a PC" element; possibly it can be replaced with "Rival is a teammate" or something similar that actually makes it more disadvantageous.

[Susano]

Conversely, someone else posited recently that Berserk/Enraged could be expanded to include other uncontrolled behaviors such as panic, obsession, or even sexual passion. I like that proposal much better; for yours, I'd just say that if you don't like the Disadvantage then don't take it.Here I agree with the proposal to make Rivalry just a part of Psychological Limitation.

Hmm... I like that idea. But I think that "Enraged/Berserk" needs a little work to make it more flexible in how it works. One suggestion our group had was to model the go/recover as a modifier to your EGO Roll. Another was expand on what actions your character should take (as opposed to an absolute 'you do X').

[Chris Goodwin]

Perhaps Psychological Limitation could be modified with a "roll to avoid" and a "roll to snap out of it". Most Psych Limits generally only affect you for a Phase or part of a scene, but in the case of the ones that don't, you get this.

And in the generalized version of Berserk/Enraged, the difference is in your choice of targets... so that generalizes out. If the Disadvantage is, for instance, sexual passion.... as it says, for 5 points less you get to choose your targets.......

Many years ago I wondered why Berserk wasn't a Psych Limit.

[Opal]

If you get a 20 point disad for "characteristics above X cost double", there should be a similar disad for "mental powers cost double" or "non-fire based powers cost double" or similar restrictions on how the character spends his points.Fantasy Hero had something like this involving schools of magic, so, yes, depending on the campaign, a disadvantage that made it harder for your character to develop in one direction or another might well be worth points. For instance, if you were playing Lensman Hero, the "mental powers cost double" Disadvantage would be quite disadvantageous, just as NCM is a real disadvantage for those trying to compete in the same arena as superhumanly fast speedsters and superhumanly strong bricks.



Finally, in games where NCM is a default, the ability to circumvent it by putting limitations on characteristics should be eliminated.I've always been more than a little leary of this thing, as well. Though, when you consider that limitted chracteristics are likely not to give you figured characteristics, it may not be all it's cracked up to be. It certainly is the kind of thing the GM needs to keep an eye on, though.

[Blue]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

"Complications" is ok. "Backgrounds" works for me. "Plot Points" could even work, in a narrative sense.

Q: Should the term “Limitation” be removed from the names of various Disadvantages?

Sure. Doesn't hurt to clarify.


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

I like the idea of fewer disadvantages required to be up to average. I find myself piling on extra hunteds to account for the points needed. Turns out in a Superhero game, every villain is a hunter who just hasn't met you yet :p


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

Age limitati0ns can simply be handled thorugh a Physical limitation.

[rjcurrie]

Overall, I like the way you're going with Disadvantages, Steve.

There are a couple of areas that need to be looked at with regards to Disadvantages. First, it's relatively easy to take TONS of Hunteds at the 14- level, or max this out - it's a very "safe" thing to do, since in my over-20-years-as-Champions player/gm experience, GM's almost never want to deal with hunteds Every. Single. Game.

To me, it's simple, for the first several session, they all show up at the same time, going after you and your temmates. The other players will soon make you change those disads. But seriously, a GM should simply not allow it. to me, it sounds like a GM problem not a rules problem.

Secondly, let's talk about Berzerk and Enraged. I don't like these Disadvantages because you end up losing control of your character. Both have quite specific rules as to what your character does when he goes enraged or berzerk.

Frankly, losing control of your character is not fun.

If you don't want to lose control of your character, don't take those disadvantages. Losing control is what they are all about. Sometimes losing control of your character in certain situations is an important part of the character.

My suggestion: turn Berzerk and Enraged into Psychological Limitations. This can leave the stimulus the same (Rarr! Hulk hate Rabbits!) but leave the RESPONSE in the control of the player - which allows for far more interesting, creative, and FUN results other than "must attack with most powerful attack form until dead or unconscious."

This is already an option if you don't want to take it as an Enraged or Berserk. Just take an appropriate Psych Lim like you say.

Also: Consider merging Rivalry into one of the other categories. Usually, Rivalry is a psychological thing (I MUST be better than the Joneses) or a social thing. Also, my suggestion would be to avoid encouraging rivalry between PC's - some groups can deal with inter-party conflict in a mature manner. Most (in my experience) have trouble with that concept - taking away the bonus for having a rivalry with another PC might help, in some small way, to keep things more fun.

Again, I disagree. A GM can also say he's not allowing fellow PCs as Rivals.

[rjcurrie]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

"Complications" is ok. "Backgrounds" works for me. "Plot Points" could even work, in a narrative sense.

"Plot Points" does not work for me because it has "Points" in the phrase. Do we call the points received for these "Plot Point Points"?

"Backgrounds" doesn't work for me at all. It feels wrong to say a character has multiple backgrounds unless you're talking about Donan Troy. :)

[Blue]

The problem I've had with disadvantages over the years has been trying to implement them all. And when you have 10 players, as I once had, each with 100 pts of disads, it's nearly impossible to cover everything to the degree required.


Example: All 10 players have at least 2 hunteds. If I use the "roll" method to determine who will be involved in a scenario, I wind up with, on average, 5 hunteds, in some cases none of them being the actual intended villain. So few people I know use that method, instead just inserting one or two where they can.

Example: One guy has a vulnerability to electrical attacks and another has a vulnerability to fire attacks. They're similarly valued before the campaign. Then, through no fault of the player (or honestly, the GM) I happen to run three scenarios in a row that have a guy with electrical powers of some kind, whereas I just don't have a fire guy anywhere on the schedule. This happens when you run canned games sometimes.

So the idea of having some kind of al