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 alternate method of rewarding players based on when the disad actually occurs would be more logical.

[Supreme Serpent]

I think the terminology is fine, not a required change.

BUT, if the terminology is going to be changed, I would:

-Keep "Advantages" as "Advantages".
-Change "Limitations" to "Disadvantages", clear opposite of Advantages.
-Change "Disadvantages" to "Limitations" - easy fit with Physical/Psych/Social Lims.

Why Advantages and Disadvantages aren't linked together has long been one of the 'huh?' bits of Champions/Hero.

[ajackson]

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.
The problem with that is that psych lims aren't costed quite right for that. A character with a 'very common, irrational' psych lim (20 points) is going to have his disad come a lot more often than a character with two 'uncommon, irrational' psych lims (20 points).

The other problem with disadvantages is keeping track of them; when you have a lot of disads, it's easy to forget about some of them. Something I've pondered, but never implemented in a game, is placing a cap on the number of disadvantages you can take, but no cap on the point value. Probably something like 2 of one category, 5 total.

[archermoo]

The problem with that is that psych lims aren't costed quite right for that. A character with a 'very common, irrational' psych lim (20 points) is going to have his disad come a lot more often than a character with two 'uncommon, irrational' psych lims (20 points).

The other problem with disadvantages is keeping track of them; when you have a lot of disads, it's easy to forget about some of them. Something I've pondered, but never implemented in a game, is placing a cap on the number of disadvantages you can take, but no cap on the point value. Probably something like 2 of one category, 5 total.

In my experience if you are taking Disads that you can't remember are on the character, you should probably dump them as they obviously aren't central enough to the character concept for you to remember them. I've had that happen on a number of occasions, particularly with characters that evolved a lot during the creation process. They end up with a Disad that was purchased early, and then the character grew away from it. I ususally catch them during creation, but not always. If I don't, I'll just ask the Ref's permission to change it to something more appropriate when I realize it.

[Blue]

I would definitely NOT flipflop "limitations" and "disadvantages". There could be nothing more confusing than this. Especially if you've been playing for 25+ years, as I have.

[Opal]

I would definitely NOT flipflop "limitations" and "disadvantages". There could be nothing more confusing than this. Especially if you've been playing for 25+ years, as I have.So have I, but I'd have no problem with it if it even slightly improved the chances of getting more folks into the system.

Yes, I'd be occassionally calling Limitations 'disads' for decades to come, just like I still call 'Mental Defense' 'Ego Defense' - it comes with the territory.

[Blue]

So have I, but I'd have no problem with it if it even slightly improved the chances of getting more folks into the system.

Yes, I'd be occassionally calling Limitations 'disads' for decades to come, just like I still call 'Mental Defense' 'Ego Defense' - it comes with the territory.
I think it's just better to go to a 3rd name rather than swapping them if they change the names at all.

[Opal]

I think it's just better to go to a 3rd name rather than swapping them if they change the names at all.

So, like Adders, Deducters, and Complications or something? That'd be fine, too.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd like to suggest that a new Disadvantage type be included: GM Defined Disadvantage.

The Disadvantage would be essentially a template for the GM to use to new types of Disadvantages for his games. It would have a table listing, for instance, the frequency of the new Disadvantage, the intensity or extent of the effects, and some ideas for potential "other" bits to include (such as difficulty in shaking off or overcoming the effects, or duration of the effects, and so on).

I'm going attempt to anticipate a potential comment: we already have all the types we need. They should cover everything. Right?

My response: Consider Berserk. Could be a form of Mental Disadvantage, right? How about Hunted, DNPC, Distinctive Features. Could be considered forms of Social Disadvantages? But they're all separate types, each with their own forms and styles of building. The same would go for the GM Defined Disadvantages.

They're called GM Defined because they're really up to the GM to set for a campaign, though GMs could of course allow player created ones at their option.

Comments?

[Chris Goodwin]

Example: A GM wants to explore religious themes in a Fantasy Hero game, so he creates a new Disadvantage: Religious Disadvantage, which is somewhere on the border of Mental Disadvantage*, Social Disadvantage, and Hunted. He creates a familiar looking set of 5-10-15, 0-5-10, +5, +5 tracks and populates it. He has modifiers for how common the Disadvantage should come into play, how difficult it is to fight it, and the potential punishments for violating it (which can range from minor penance or corporal punishment, to maiming or being stripped of title and lands, all the way up to auto-da-fe, direct divine intervention and eternal damnation). His three players, delighted to not have to come up with yet another Hunted or Mental Disadvantage, each hand in a character with a Religious Disadvantage. One has Vow of Poverty, one has Duty to Defend the Downtrodden, and one has Tempted by Women. Each of these has story hooks for the GM and spiritual implications for the characters.

* I'm assuming this will be the new name for Psychological Limitation, to contrast with Physical Disadvantage and Social Disadvantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

Why not just give everyone a 20 point disadvantage "everything not purchased by this character would cost him double"? No one who would actually be disadvantaged by the NCM disadvantage takes the NCM disadvantage.

If I want to buy a 35 CON from 20, I'll buy off NCM and pay 30 for the CON, not pay 60 for the CON.

[Opal]

Why not just give everyone a 20 point disadvantage "everything not purchased by this character would cost him double"?Well, obviously, because it's the GM, not the player, who defines such disads, based on his campaign. NCM is only available if the GM says so.

But, even though player defined and obviously silly, even such a disadvantage /would/ be a problem, as spending exp for anything other than buying up what you already had would cost double - a character unable to broaden his abilities over time is decidedly limitted.



If I want to buy a 35 CON from 20, I'll buy off NCM and pay 30 for the CON, not pay 60 for the CON.
True, you've paid 50 for it, instead of 60. And, really, you'd need some kind of 'radiation accident' deal with the DM to explain such a thing, too. But, that's no different than a character with a Code vs Killing, who, when he finally has a real reason to kill someone does so, and buys off the Code. Every disadvantage faces that odd possibility.

[steamteck]

Why not just give everyone a 20 point disadvantage "everything not purchased by this character would cost him double"? No one who would actually be disadvantaged by the NCM disadvantage takes the NCM disadvantage.

If I want to buy a 35 CON from 20, I'll buy off NCM and pay 30 for the CON, not pay 60 for the CON.



But if I want to buy a 23 DEX I will pay double. My Players do that all the time. I like soft caps in general though. Gives you a scale but more flexibility.
I swear every single time some one on the forum says nobody does that . My group does. We're bizarre that way I guess:angel:

[rjcurrie]

But if I want to buy a 23 DEX I will pay double. My Players do that all the time. I like soft caps in general though. Gives you a scale but more flexibility.
I swear every single time some one on the forum says nobody does that . My group does. We're bizarre that way I guess:angel:

Well, of course, in the case of the 23 DEX, that's only 9 points more so it wouldn't be worth buying off the NCM Disadvantage. But I see your point.

In my opinion, there should be no NCM Disadvantage. A campaign should either use Normal Characteristic Maxima or it shouldn't.

[Starlight]

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson: Why not just give everyone a 20 point disadvantage "everything not purchased by this character would cost him double". No one who would actually be disadvantaged by the NCM disadvantage takes the NCM disadvantage. NCM isn’t really a disadvantage in my opinion. It occurs in the disadvantages section because there’s no better place to put it. In essence NCM is a reward for building a normal within that concept in a world full of superhumans. Buying characteristics is by far the most efficient way to bring a character up to balance with the rest of the characters in a superhero campaign. Start with normal human characteristics and that character will be buying lots of skill levels. And we know that buying skills levels is invariably more expensive than buying up characteristics. It probably isn’t worth 20pts though. I’d say 10pts is closer to a correct value. Also, yes, getting around NCM by buying limited characteristics as Powers is broken. Limited characteristics in such cases ought to take the cost double modifier on them before the limitations are applied.

[Netzilla]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

I agree with the idea of changing the name to “Complications” for all the reasons given.


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

I can see the reasoning for this, but consider it a pretty minor issue. I don't personally know of anyone who has been confused by this.


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

I'm strongly in favor of this idea. I think that Disadvantages should grant either Heroic Action Points or bonus Experience for the scenario in which they come up. This would remove the possibility of “freebe” Disadvantages altogether.


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

Changing them to campaign rules would be fine. Getting rid of the concept entirely would be a bad idea.


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

I definitely think so and I believe that the granularity needs to be improved. As it stands now it seems to fiddly to try to model things like additions.

[archermoo]

Well, of course, in the case of the 23 DEX, that's only 9 points more so it wouldn't be worth buying off the NCM Disadvantage. But I see your point.

In my opinion, there should be no NCM Disadvantage. A campaign should either use Normal Characteristic Maxima or it shouldn't.

Much agreementness on this one, though I think the name should be changed. I'll let you know if/when I come up with a good replacement. :)

[rjcurrie]

Much agreementness on this one, though I think the name should be changed. I'll let you know if/when I come up with a good replacement. :)

Campagin Characteristic Maxima?

[steamteck]

Well, of course, in the case of the 23 DEX, that's only 9 points more so it wouldn't be worth buying off the NCM Disadvantage. But I see your point.

In my opinion, there should be no NCM Disadvantage. A campaign should either use Normal Characteristic Maxima or it shouldn't.


here's where I apparently differ from most. We use it to differentiate physically normal humans from physical superhumans. Your suggestion of all or nothing just wouldn't work for us with use for our multiverse campaign. I'd actually prefer something like "normal human "which was more than just Stats but other limitations of being "only human"

[archermoo]

Campagin Characteristic Maxima?

Probably a good one. Certainly better than Normal Characteristic Maxima. :)

Though they really aren't maxima. They're just the point at which Characteristics start costing twice as much. But anything that takes away from the misunderstanding that the "normal" means "normal person" rather that what is normal for the campaign is a good thing. :thumbup:

[GamePhil]

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


I honestly don't care. As long as Disadvantages, by whatever name they are under, continue to be a way of rewarding players for coming up with plot hooks to bring to the table, I feel fine. I think that a Hero Point per game it comes up is, however, less of an inducement than I would like, but that's just details.

Lowering the needed Disadvantages is just a matter of preference, and is easily put in the section detailing appropriate character points per setting. Just toss in an extra thing for, I don't know, "Complexity Level" (if they are Complications) to get a range of how many Disadvantages should be taken.

It should be trivially easy to make a Reward Per Game system based on the Reward Of Points At Start system, you just have a paragraph explaining that characters can instead take the Disadvantages another to mean that they get X reward per game they occur in, and that they can have X points to spend on Disadvantages, and then get the total points to spend on their characters as well. Of course, that runs the risk of the slippery slope of extra options that make the book twice as thick, but I think a paragraph on this is a good place to use up any extra space.

So you get 350 points to spend on the character, and 100 (or whatever) points to spend on Plot Hooks (just a generic name, not a suggestion). The more often the PH comes up, the more often he'll get the reward, and the more damaging it is, the more reward it should be each time it comes up (Hunted by Dr. Destroyer 14- should be worth several points per game he is survived, for example). The point restriction on PHs is for two reasons: to keep individual characters from being more complex than the GM wants, and to keep the amount of Hero points roughly equal between characters, so you have to "buy" them with the points.

Now, the reward must be enough that anyone trying to get around it or just not taking any because they mess up his character should be able to see clear advantages and want to take it, but I don't think that such a system will work for everyone, which is why I suggest making it optional. That could be a matter for GM tweaking, though.

[GamePhil]

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


I actually believe that NCM as it exists now should be removed altogether, and Age should be a small Physical Limitation that has nothing to do with Characteristics. Instead, NCM should be a guideline for a campaign that you can't go over without GMs permission, but buying it up past that is at the normal cost. If the costs of having the high stat is reasonable, it should be reasonable everywhere (especially without Figured Characteristics adding to the confusion), though the GM may not let you have it for reasons of genre. And if the GM is not letting you have it for reasons of genre, paying double doesn't matter.

[SAVeira]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Sure. I like "Complications".


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

This is fine too, but go with Physical Complications, Psychological Complications, etc...


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

If a number of the changes preposed go through, the cost of creating a character will raise, then I think it is time to change the reward of Disadvantages. Heroic Points sounds like an interesting idea. Need to heard more on the exact way Disadvantages would change.


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

While I do use this, I have no problem seeing it go.


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

Sounds good to me.


Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Incorporate the Champions rules, please.


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

Fine with me. Do not think it will harm or enhance the game either way.

[nexus]

Minor thought: Change Hunted to Hunter:

Ex: Hunter: VIPER More Powerful 8-

Might be clearer for new comers. I've never had a problem with it but that it could be worth tossing up.

[Chris Goodwin]

How about an Archenemy Disadvantage? I know that that's what Hunted was originally supposed to be, but most of the time it comes off as "This guy wants to kill/capture/monitor you," not so much as "He's your main villain whose schemes you are most often trying to stop."

[nexus]

How about an Archenemy Disadvantage? I know that that's what Hunted was originally supposed to be, but most of the time it comes off as "This guy wants to kill/capture/monitor you," not so much as "He's your main villain whose schemes you are most often trying to stop."

Maybe as expansion to Rivalry?

[Chris Goodwin]

Maybe as expansion to Rivalry?

Or maybe as part of the New or Generic or GM Determined Disadvantage idea I mentioned back a ways. No reason it couldn't be a whole new category.

[rjcurrie]

Or maybe as part of the New or Generic or GM Determined Disadvantage idea I mentioned back a ways. No reason it couldn't be a whole new category.

Maybe an adder to Hunted to indicate the Archenemy.

[James Gillen]

I actually believe that NCM as it exists now should be removed altogether, and Age should be a small Physical Limitation that has nothing to do with Characteristics.

As in, with Star Wars Episode III both Yoda and Palpatine would qualify as "Old" but could still fight for over 10 minutes. But once Yoda got sufficiently beaten up, he retreated from combat, because he knew he didn't have much endurance left. Age already accounts for non-combat elements like being more susceptible to disease, aches, tiredness, etc.


Instead, NCM should be a guideline for a campaign that you can't go over without GMs permission, but buying it up past that is at the normal cost. If the costs of having the high stat is reasonable, it should be reasonable everywhere (especially without Figured Characteristics adding to the confusion), though the GM may not let you have it for reasons of genre. And if the GM is not letting you have it for reasons of genre, paying double doesn't matter.

Now that we're looking at it I'm surprised it's not considered in terms of campaign limit. If the GM tells you you can't have an Energy Blast over 12DC then it doesn't get on your character sheet. If you're a "normal" human in a Pulp campaign and you're actually willing to spend points to jack your STR to 40, the GM is well within rights to say you can't, even if you're willing to spend the points.

JG

[steamteck]

Maybe an adder to Hunted to indicate the Archenemy.


I like that

[rjcurrie]

here's where I apparently differ from most. We use it to differentiate physically normal humans from physical superhumans. Your suggestion of all or nothing just wouldn't work for us with use for our multiverse campaign. I'd actually prefer something like "normal human "which was more than just Stats but other limitations of being "only human"

Physical Limitation: Normal human.

[BobGreenwade]

Maybe an adder to Hunted to indicate the Archenemy.I was going to suggest this. To keep it genre-inspecific ("Archenemy" is kind of superhero-skewed) it could be called Mutual or Reciprocal.

[arromdee]

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.

It seems to me that not getting points for disadvantages gained during play is balanced out by not losing points when they go away. If the GM has someone hunt you, you'll eventually catch him and get him out of your hair. If it's a Hunted on your sheet, he doesn't go away until you spend the points to lose the disadvantage.

[BobGreenwade]

It seems to me that not getting points for disadvantages gained during play is balanced out by not losing points when they go away. If the GM has someone hunt you, you'll eventually catch him and get him out of your hair. If it's a Hunted on your sheet, he doesn't go away until you spend the points to lose the disadvantage.Except that doing so (spending the points to lose the Disadvantage) is mandatory -- you don't get to catch your Hunter and get him out of your hair until you do, the only exception being that you may trade that Disadvantage for another.

[dsatow]

One of the ideas I had I posted to the 6th edition forum and a poll. I quote it here because one of the responses was people might be interested in the thread here. Please vote in the poll, as I think I may do this in my next campaign anyways and would like input.

Quoted form the original article.



One of the problems I see running is that many characters have well defined hunteds as disadvantages. They will buy up a hunted to 14- and then be depressed when the hunted doesn't show up on a 14- scale. Add to this a party of 6 each with say 2 hunteds at 14-, every game will end up with an army of hunteds and the GM never gets to run his plot.

Now as a GM I could just ignore the hunteds and that's fine. But as a player, I will feel unsatisfied if I am the great super "Waco Man" and I am not being hunted by the ATF on a 14-. It never lets me as a player develop that thread on the character and disgusted I buy off the useless hunted.

My solution: Plot threads. These are like GM mystery disadvantages but unlike them, I know what the threads are. The GM can choose to exploit these disadvantages at anytime, changing them to other disadvantages as necessary.

Ex: I buy a 25 point plot thread(PT), "Powers came from a mysterious crashed UFO". The GM isn't forced into a time to execute the thread nor will this thread be used in a game at a convention. When the GM wants to execute, he comes up with a story line for the character. In this example, the UFO is a prison ship and the powers are for an intergalactic villain. As play continues, the 25 point plot thread is changed to 2 hunteds, one a intergalactic supervillain who wants his focus back and one an intergalactic bounty hunter who's reward is based on taking the powers from the super.

Another advantage to plot threads is GMs can use them as notes against the PC and PC continuity. GM A places a plot thread against the player (PT:"Father comes back into life of PC") but the campaign ends before the PT can be fulfilled. The next GM sees the PT and decides that the Father is actually a supervillain. This may not match what the original GM had in mind which could have been the Father was an older superhero(DNPC) out of his prime and meddling in Junior's affairs.

[BobGreenwade]

There are so many comments in here reflecting misconceptions on how Disadvantages already work under 5th Edition, that it sort of illustrates why I and several others wanted to see The Ultimate Disadvantage. But, at this point, that's neither here nor there.

The change I'd most like to see in 6th Edition on Disadvantages has little to do with mechanics. I'd just like to see more extensive advice to GMs on properly working them into the game. As dsatow indicates, Hunters are fairly common in superhero games in particular, but the GM can't always bring in all those Hunters for frontal assaults in every scenario lest the session's intended main plot be overshadowed by just dealing with Hunters. But if a Hunter's "appearance" in a scenario is merely providing aid to the main story's primary villain in the form of information about the Hunted character and/or weapons and other equipment to deal with him, then that should count. So could any application of Non-Combat Influence; if VIPER owns a local TV station, then that station's news reports can be slanted to make the Hunted character look like a yutz.

Similar advice should be given for DNPCs, Susceptibilities, Vulnerabilities, and just about every other Disadvantage.

[Vondy]

I was going to suggest this. To keep it genre-inspecific ("Archenemy" is kind of superhero-skewed) it could be called Mutual or Reciprocal.

In my game we use an adder on the rivalry disadvantage that turns it into "nemesis."

[dsatow]

Appending some interesting replies on Plot Thread idea here.

From Von D-man


Its only been the past 3-5 years that I've heard players say things like "I took this disadvantage so you owe me a plot on it..." I what?! Character design and campaign have to be balanced. The character has to fit into the campaign, and with that in mind, the GM and player pretty much have to negotiate the character (and their disadvantages). Its a matter of cooperation and communication.

At the same time, as a GM, I try to rotate player subplots along with the main plot, with player subplots taking center stage or heavily impacting the main event on occassion. I do think about character's disadvantages (well, the villains know he's affected badly by compound x), but I don't feel bound by them, or as though I have some moral debt to the player to step on it in any given game. Its always a question of what works for the plot (GM) and subplot (Player) at hand.

As a result, we've never run hunteds (or several other things) with rolls (though we do note an agreed upon frequency), and all disadvantages are mutable in that they can morph into other disadvantages if the story dictates it. Also, as GM, if a disadvantage has run its course or become less intensive, and there isn't a logical replacement or mutation at that time, I require the player to buy it off (there's a legitimate, story oriented use of character points you almost never see).

It could be that my style has always been narrative-simulationist in bent and that I've always been interested in giving the characters stage time and plot threads, but I don't get the sense of entitlement that has emerged in the "I took a disadvantage and now you owe me" line (I'm not saying that's the OP's tone, but it is one I've seen on the boards a bit). It takes an immense amount of work to run an ongoing campaing, and the players wants (and character's disadvantages) should be used now and again, but GM's shouldn't let character sheets dictate anything to them.

For instance, the player took "Hunted X 14-" and then starts complaining that the hunted doesn't show up again... well, this isn't the your character is hunted by x campaign and there are other people here. This is a fundamental problem with having rolls and frequencies attached to disadvantages in the first place. Its also a problem with rolls for contacts. You blew your roll but I have the perfect way for that contact to help you, or "I don't care if you rolled a 3 on your Contact: CIA 14-, they don't know anything about the men who kidnapped aunt sally's cat..."

I agree plot threads are an interesting and potentially superior as a method of dealing with disadvantages, but only in that they come with a caveat: they are negotiated and work well with the overall campaign.


From Karmakaze


I never roll hunted's and DNPCs either. Rolling per session would be silly, as we have very short sessions due to everyone's work schedules. Rolling per plotline gets messy as well, because we usually have overlapping plots. I use the roll numbers as a general frequency. I'd be fine if hunteds and DNPCs had the same scale as psychlims and physlims, personally.


I've quoted these because they seem to indicate several issues not discussed yet and the other thread has been closed by Steve and asked to be put here.

1) Frequency seems broken. Many GMs give up on frequencies because it can hamper play. While I never let frequencies interfere with a game, I know many players whose disads are just as vital to them as thier powers. What would Peter Parker be if he didn't have his Aunt May disad, bad luck, or his Hunted/DNPC J Jonah Jameson? Of course, Spiderman generally runs alone and in a team you don't nearly see the Hunted show up as much as in his solo comic book (ex: See spiderman title vs avenger title).

I would suggest changing frequency to how dedicated/involved the item is. For example, on a DNPC with a light dedication/involvement would indicate a very seldom influence on the character. A heavy dedication or involvement would say the DNPC is in the character's life alot.

2) I personally see my campaign as a cooperatively built world, not a world I design for them to play in. If I design everything in the world, and I can tend to do that, the players many times have no real stake in the world. Its not that thier characters do not have a stake in the world, its that the player has no real feel for the world or desire to do anything than be in the world.

Example:
GM: Ok Hero A, what are you doing this Saturday night.
Hero A: The usual.
GM: Can you elaborate on that.
Hero A: I guess I am at home.
GM: What are you doing at home?
Hero A: Cleaning my weapons.
GM: So its a Saturday night, and millionaire playboy BW is at home cleaning his utility belt?
Hero A: Yup.

I think Plot Threads may be a way of prodding characters in a direction of more than reacting to the environment.

3) Its another disad. One of the comments in this thread seems to be whether or not its easy enough to get points for a character. With plot threads, its another way to get points for good character conception (something HERO players overlook).

[dsatow]

NCM is broken in several ways

1) It really only applies to Superhero genres.

2) Players tend to think that the boundaries are actually human limits. No human will ever go over a 20 stat. This isn't the case, its just a rarity issue but there are people who think if you have a stat over 20 you are superhuman.

3) Its only worth 20 points but hampers players development much greater in superhero games.

[BobGreenwade]

NCM is broken in several ways

1) It really only applies to Superhero genres.

2) Players tend to think that the boundaries are actually human limits. No human will ever go over a 20 stat. This isn't the case, its just a rarity issue but there are people who think if you have a stat over 20 you are superhuman.

3) Its only worth 20 points but hampers players development much greater in superhero games.These are really points for clarification (especailly #2) rather than reasons it's broken. #1 is more likely a decent argument for relegation to the Champions genre book. And I'm not sure about #3; I've had the opposite experience.

[Karmakaze]

NCM is broken in several ways

1) It really only applies to Superhero genres.

It can turn up as racial limits in Space and Fantasy, too.

[Doc Democracy]

My friends and I have been developing a system to play superheroes the way we want to play it. One of teh mechanics we've been looking at is a spotlight mechanic where one of the characters is placed in the spotlight for a time. We've been looking at reasons to be placed in the spotlight and the pros and cons of being there. Essentially a spotlighted character will be the one that the villain will attack unless there is overwhelming reason to attack someone else, the character that the random events happen to and the person who will be susceptible to the new alien virus etc that the group has been exposed to. In return the spotlighted hero will be able to push himself further and achieve more than he normally would.

Obviously the mechanics are different and work differently but I think that disadvantages would be an ideal base for a spotlight mechanic....


Doc

[James Gillen]

NCM is broken in several ways

1) It really only applies to Superhero genres.

2) Players tend to think that the boundaries are actually human limits. No human will ever go over a 20 stat. This isn't the case, its just a rarity issue but there are people who think if you have a stat over 20 you are superhuman.

3) Its only worth 20 points but hampers players development much greater in superhero games.

1. It gets POINTS only in Superhero games. It applies to fantasy games insofar as the typical Human, Elf or Halfling is not gonna have that level of STR, although some "trollblooded" or half-giant types could justify it. But as a rule, you shouldn't be able to jack your STR up to 'superhuman' levels with points, no matter how cheap or expensive it is.
2. See 1.
3. Again, it only gets points in supers games BECAUSE it's more of a hindrance than it would be in a fantasy game. THAT'S WHY IT'S A DISADVANTAGE. ;) It was also the only way I could get the 20 points I needed for my last Powered Armor character after maxing out his Hunteds and Psych Disads and getting "Subject to Orders" for being in the military. And it was worth points; my character got introduced to the others when he was at the coffee shop in his secret ID and they got attacked by bank robbers. :D

JG

[Pattern Ghost]

IMO the real problem with NCM is that players can easily circumvent it by buying stats through Foci.

That's basically getting 20 points to fill up the requisite Disads side of the character sheet for free.

I think at the least, applying the double points to all stats bought, regardless of how it was done (through Focus, through Multiform, through Summons, you name it) should be considered.

Or simply disallowing any Disadvantage points for NCM and simply putting the concept in as a campaign templating tool.

[Netzilla]

IMO the real problem with NCM is that players can easily circumvent it by buying stats through Foci.

This is a loophole to NCM that I really wish would get closed regardless of weather NCM remains a Disadvantage or becomes purely a campaign ground-rule. Characteristics bought as powers should not get a free pass around NCM. Not only can you buy the stat cheaper because you applied limitations (focus, oihid, no figured, whatever) but you also get to circumvent NCM? Where's the downside? Characteristics can be Drained/Suppressed weather they're bought as Characteristics or Powers.

[Vondy]

Rogues Gallery

I would like to see a "rogues gallery" adder for the hunted limitation. Effectively, characters with several hunteds (or hordes of them), take this adder. Then, if the frequency or roll indicates (depending on how you do it in you're campaign), one of the hunteds shows up. This works well for simulating characters who have long careers, or just tons of enemies. A comic book example would be spider man, batman, or superman. A gaming example would be my Freedom Patrol game: the characters were hunted by "freedom patrol enemies." This could be costed as a flat adder, or use a +5 for every X2 the way DNPC works. The base cost is based on the most powerful enemy in the rogues gallery. I used a flat +10 for my adder. The disadvantage was a 30 pointer in my game.

[Squidkid]

"This leads to some undesirable 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 think the above problem is a Game Master problem and not a game mechanics problem. To my mind, all of these issues are better addressed by a Game Master who enforces:

A. The fundamental rule that a Disadvantage that isn’t a disadvantage isn’t worth any points.

B. Disadvantages need to make sense in the context of your overall character conception. In other words, if you can't give me a good reason/explanation of the disadvantage you can't have it.[/

C. This problem takes care of itself when a and b are being properly looked after. If a player can justify significantly more Disadvantages than the other players in the game AND Disadvantages truly disadvantage the player, then the relative difference in power between characters isn't much of an issue

For example, I’ve wrestled with the second problem with one of my current players who really didn’t have a lot of ideas for Disadvantages and so had about 65 fewer points to work with than the other two players. We managed to discuss his character and work it out without much difficulty. He ended up taking an extra Psych Disadvantage that made sense and a mystery Hunted that we would develop in the first few sessions, which brought him up to being roughly equivalent with the other players.

For my money, I think you should avoid radically altering Disadvantages. I think they are a hugely important component of the game and function well the way they are currently conceived.

[BobGreenwade]

Here are a couple of ideas I'll just run up the ol' flagpole to see if anyone salutes....

1) For Disadvantages currently expressed as 8-, 11-, and 14-, let's have options for 5- and 17- (call them Very Rare and Almost Always). Also, by the same token, larger amounts of possible damage from Dependence and Susceptibility. They may be left subject to GM approval, but let's at least say in the book that it's possible.

2) Let's not feel compelled to have every Disadvantage come out as an even multiple of 5. Yes, this does make some of the math easier, but easy math is less of a concern at character building time than it is in play. And yes, it does help guarantee that any character we make can come out right at the Disadvantages maximum, but this isn't necessarily a good thing either. Having a higher resolution in the Disadvantages system, as we did in earlier editions, actually helps give us greater differentiation between characters. And I believe we can take that resolution to an even higher level than before.

This would allow for many possibilities:

a) DNPC, Hunter, and other Rolls of 9-, 10-, 12-, 13-, and elsewhere.

b) Intermediate levels of Commonality and Severity for Physical, Psychological, and Social Limitations, among others.

c) Less cost confusion if a Limitation is applied to a Disadvantage (see earlier post) -- admittedly not much, but it's there.

d) Something similar to Quirks, where a character has a rarely-effective but distinctive schtick for just 1 point.

[Opal]

About NCM: Maybe if stats bought as powers /really/ aren't your stats, and thus not subject to NCM, they should be bought up from zero - parallel, rather than stacking with your own stats. So if your normal with NCM wanted a power exoskelleton able to exert a 40 STR, it'd cost 40 points (less limitations), and a person wearing it would exert 40 STR with it, regardless of his actual STR, be it 5 or 35.

[Chris Goodwin]

Which would simplify buying STR Usable At Range to represent Telekinesis and Stretching.

[GamePhil]

About NCM: Maybe if stats bought as powers /really/ aren't your stats, and thus not subject to NCM, they should be bought up from zero - parallel, rather than stacking with your own stats. So if your normal with NCM wanted a power exoskelleton able to exert a 40 STR, it'd cost 40 points (less limitations), and a person wearing it would exert 40 STR with it, regardless of his actual STR, be it 5 or 35.

Been thinking about it and it's a perfectly sound optional rule. Some games will need that level of separation, especially Heroic ones, though I think it will almost always be applied to STR, or possibly DEX (for machines that take over rather than increase your own reactions).

I don't like it as the ground rule, though. I prefer allowing characters to buy their Powered Armor (or whatever) by purchasing the difference between what they have and what they end up with, rather than having to buy the whole thing from scratch. It does make sense with a Universal Focus, and possibly in other cases, but I think such a thing should also get a Limitation for Does Not Stack. Most of the time, though, I'd be willing to just let the character buy the difference and make the judgement call if someone else is using it.

It could be good advice to require such a Limitation for characters with NCM, whether as a Disad or otherwise. Personally, I never had a problem with the "cheat" of Characteristics As Powers as a baseline, though I can imagine games where it would be a problem. It's also a good Toolkitting rule: present a Does Not Stack Limitation, and mention that "for X types of games, this Limitation is required and a -0 value".

[GamePhil]

Which would simplify buying STR Usable At Range to represent Telekinesis and Stretching.

I wouldn't think you'd use it for Stretching, as that uses your own STR. You might use it for Telekinesis, but as I said, I'd prefer there to also be a Does Not Stack Limitation on it.

[Opal]

Which would simplify buying STR Usable At Range to represent Telekinesis and Stretching.TK, yes, stretching, no. STR as a power completely sepparate from your innate STR, could certainly be used to model TK. I'd prefer to see a 5 Apt/5 STR TK that's not quite that good, one way or another, but it'd be fine.

Stretching, I think, still deserves it's own power. It should be more like a movement power, since that is what it does, it moves bits of you about the battlefield. The restriction against stretching to a distant point and then un-stretching to move to that point is what I think should go. As a movement power, of course, you could do move-bys and move-throughs with it, making it a bit more effective, offensively.

[Opal]

Been thinking about it and it's a perfectly sound optional rule. Some games will need that level of separation, especially Heroic ones, though I think it will almost always be applied to STR, or possibly DEX (for machines that take over rather than increase your own reactions).

I don't like it as the ground rule, though. I prefer allowing characters to buy their Powered Armor (or whatever) by purchasing the difference between what they have and what they end up with, rather than having to buy the whole thing from scratch. I have to admit, I'd like to still see that, also. But, maybe not for characters with NCM? I don't know, I /like/ NCM, so I'd like to see it stay, and would be willing to see it be a little more restrictive (in ways that make sense) to keep it around.

Of course, this could also be one of those "is your power armor really a limitation?" thing. If your GM judges your power armor not really worth a limtation, and you don't have NCM, you could go right ahead and buy up your characteristics through it (F/X) with no problem.

Then there's the question of how Aid should interact with NCM too.



It's also a good Toolkitting rule: present a Does Not Stack Limitation, and mention that "for X types of games, this Limitation is required and a -0 value".Ah, that's a good idea, yes.

[James Gillen]

Rogues Gallery

I would like to see a "rogues gallery" adder for the hunted limitation. Effectively, characters with several hunteds (or hordes of them), take this adder. Then, if the frequency or roll indicates (depending on how you do it in you're campaign), one of the hunteds shows up. This works well for simulating characters who have long careers, or just tons of enemies. A comic book example would be spider man, batman, or superman. A gaming example would be my Freedom Patrol game: the characters were hunted by "freedom patrol enemies." This could be costed as a flat adder, or use a +5 for every X2 the way DNPC works. The base cost is based on the most powerful enemy in the rogues gallery. I used a flat +10 for my adder. The disadvantage was a 30 pointer in my game.

Most of this is already covered under "floating Hunted," but I like the doubler idea.

JG

[James Gillen]

About NCM: Maybe if stats bought as powers /really/ aren't your stats, and thus not subject to NCM, they should be bought up from zero - parallel, rather than stacking with your own stats. So if your normal with NCM wanted a power exoskelleton able to exert a 40 STR, it'd cost 40 points (less limitations), and a person wearing it would exert 40 STR with it, regardless of his actual STR, be it 5 or 35.

Well yeah, if the armor has a set STR capacity (like a vehicle). Is Iron Man Jim Rhodes stronger than Iron Man Tony because Jim is in better shape outside the armor?

JG

[Chris Goodwin]

Suggestion: "Naked Disadvantage Buyoffs" written into the rules. Act as a Constant Power, costs Endurance. Can be bought with Advantages and Limitations on them.

[Supreme Serpent]

Rogues Gallery


I would like to see a "rogues gallery" adder for the hunted limitation. Effectively, characters with several hunteds (or hordes of them), take this adder. Then, if the frequency or roll indicates (depending on how you do it in you're campaign), one of the hunteds shows up. This works well for simulating characters who have long careers, or just tons of enemies. A comic book example would be spider man, batman, or superman. A gaming example would be my Freedom Patrol game: the characters were hunted by "freedom patrol enemies." This could be costed as a flat adder, or use a +5 for every X2 the way DNPC works. The base cost is based on the most powerful enemy in the rogues gallery. I used a flat +10 for my adder. The disadvantage was a 30 pointer in my game.


I've used a version of this before. While normally one one at a time shows up, the extra points from the doublings represent that sometimes they team up/band together. Like Spider-Man normally just runs into Electro or Doc Ock on their own, sometimes it's the Sinister Six.

Another suggestion, about Vulnerabilities - howabout provide an option for "after defenses" vulnerabilities as a 1/2 value downgrade, similar to how Berserk->Enraged or Hunted->Watched?

[CTaylor]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

No, I like the name, disadvantages are disadvantageous, they are about drawbacks a character has that define him and give points back. A good GM uses them as plot hooks, but that's not their primary use or purpose. However, I do see the advantage/disadvantage paradox.

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

I'd be fine with changing some of the names to be shorter, but not just to substitute another long word.

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

Actually some characters I've had offered for consideration don't use all the available points, and many that use more. If PCs are forced to buy crap disads just to get the points they want, you're requiring too many points of disads for your campaign; in other words, I think you should change the points for character build suggestions to lower disad requirements like you said.

However, I would encourage you to add the hero points idea in the game in addition to the present point system. You'll notice a lot of other games have started adding in the idea of disads to give points or abilities, which suggests it's a good and popular build concept.

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

I'm fine with that.

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

Nah, its fine as is, but if you want to take the trouble go ahead.

Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

I'd put it more this way: examples and ideas of how to use susceptibility should be added, because people tend to think of it as damage only (which the rules strongly imply) and not drain, flash, etc.

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

Sure, they basically are flip sides of the same thing anyway.



One last point: stop "balancing" NPCs with retarded faux disadvantages, just build them as they are. GMs can see total costs and know what they mean in terms of power level without a goofy "villain bonus" non-disadvantage.

[stoneblade]

I like the hero points idea. it would give players the ablity to go beyond there character sheet. hero is so math driven that you know what you can do and what you can't do. with some type of hero points, that will take a little bit of math out of the fight, and let PC's maybe grow in game without just buying up powers and skills just because now I have the points at the end of the campainge. I know as GM i let my players save xp to use in game to add to things they need to get done. examples: buying up a skill from FAM level to char level, add to ocv or dcv, and pushing beyond the rulers.

When we make characters i tell them to leave me about 10 pts for a hero level game and 20 pts for super's for me or something they think of later. it helps tie the group together, and stop the last minute search for dis ad's.

[Sean Waters]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Yes. Even after all these years I still sometimes say limitation when I mean disadvantage and vice-versa. I'm not confused in my head, but everyone around me is :).

What we should call them...well...see below.


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

Clear terminology = good. Minimised confusion = good. Do it :thumbup:



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



Couple of thoughts:

1. Not all Disadvantages are the same type. Being blind is something that always causes a problem and rarely needs a spotlight. A code against killing, however, is something that probably needs to be highlighted.

So, we could have two categories of Disadvantage:

The first would be Disadvantages that are 'part of' the character - he weighs 800lbs? Well he is always going to weigh 800lbs and has to travel in lifts alone. He has distinctive looks? He has a social stigma? Nothing you can do about it in the short term, except try and work round the problem. Generally this sort of Disadvantage will give specific penalties, or have specific effects and they are part fo the character. the are almost always disadvantageous and almost always 'on'. They should be available when you build a character to increase the number of points available, although I might be persuaded to make them all a bit more 'flat fee' and lower value. We could call them Character Complications. 300+50 sounds about right.

The second would be Disadvantages that he GM has to use to make them disadvantageous - hunteds, for instance, many psych lims. These are not always on and can often be avoided. These should not give extra build points, but some other reward in-game: possibly XP, possibly Hero Points, or somesuch. You only get the opportunity to earn the bonuses when they are used, and even then only if you make some significant discovery or in some way move forward - being attacked by SnaggleTooth again is not worth a bonus, even though he is hunting you, but if you engage him in discourse during the combat and discover that he is hunting you because he thinks you were responsible for the death of his wife, that is a significant step forward, and may allow you to resolve the plot arc involving SnaggleTooth. We could call these Plot or Development Complications, and they allow improvement (or faster improvement) IN-GAME.

Finally you should be able to pick up new Character Complications AND Development Complications in-game, and get value for them OR change around the ones you have already (if you resolve a Development Complication you should be allowed to create a new one if you want (with GM approval, of course).


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



Ditch NMC is good! People can build to the standard for the game.



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



Granular is good, but we don't want to push up the 'cost' of Disadvantages, especially if we are changing how they are used. What about having disadvantage values that don;y necessarily end with a 5 or a 0?



Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

.........

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

..............

I've often felt that these disadvantages did not give value: they can be pretty devastating - deadly even - but don't yield much reward.

Dependence suggests, to many, something like a drug dependence, but even a serious heroin addiction is worth almost nothing under this Disadvantage (you model it other ways - physical and psych lims, for example).

Another thought (we kicked around some while back), the mechanic for Enraged/Berserk (E/B) could be expanded to include other involuntary/uncontrolled emotional states (Fear, Lust, Greed, Sloth...) or even actions (you have to block incoming attacks against X), which would mean that we could use that mechanic for actions you are compelled to take and the psych lim Disadvantage for actions you would refrain from taking - or you might qualify for both.

Of course, if you follow the suggestion above about different TYPES of disadvantage, the E/B mechanic would be a Character Complication and a Psych Lim would probably be a Development Complication...

[Sean Waters]

Suggestion: "Naked Disadvantage Buyoffs" written into the rules. Act as a Constant Power, costs Endurance. Can be bought with Advantages and Limitations on them.

Interesting idea, and it reminded me of something:

It would be nice to have some sort of mechanic for imposing disadvantages on others as a sort of power. I know you can do it with transform but that doesn't really differentiate between giving someone a 10 point disadvantage or a 20 point one (unless you consider one cosmetic, another minor, and another major - still a pretty blunt tool) OR you use mind control, which has the same sort of 'doesn't scale' problem.

Perhaps you take the cost of the disadvantage, double it, add UAA (+1) and you have a Costs END No range Attack power?

[CTaylor]

Yeah I agree, the ability to give someone a disad is a needed mechanic in the game (although I really like the idea of being able to use drain to do so: drain someone points equal to the disadvantage you have in mind and they get it until the drain wears off - disads like vulnerability and susceptibility/dependence would have to be double cost like defenses). Simple, easy to use, has a built-in mechanism to go away.

You could even put an advantage in like Transform has now where it gives you gradual steps, each 5 points of drained points gives you 1D6 unluck.

[PhilFleischmann]

Yeah I agree, the ability to give someone a disad is a needed mechanic in the game (although I really like the idea of being able to use drain to do so: drain someone points equal to the disadvantage you have in mind and they get it until the drain wears off - disads like vulnerability and susceptibility/dependence would have to be double cost like defenses). Simple, easy to use, has a built-in mechanism to go away.

You could even put an advantage in like Transform has now where it gives you gradual steps, each 5 points of drained points gives you 1D6 unluck.
Exactly! This is something I've been doing for years, and I've never had a problem with it. I don't know how many times I've posted the idea on the forums, but it's been *many*. You could do a search on "Disadvantages as Negative Powers".

I use Drain as a way to bestow a Disad on someone (with all the usual rules of Drain: goes against Power Defense, fades 5/turn, unless you buy it down, etc.) And you can also use Aid to provide temporary relief from someone's Disadvantage. (I've frequently given the example of "SuperShrink" who temporarily can Aid away someone's Psych Lim, or calm down someone who is Berserk.) You could also use Suppress (though you'd have to keep spending END). And even Transfer!

Don't forget when using this rule, and including in it 6th Edition, I hope, that there are some Disads that sbe treated as "Defensive Disadvantages" - analogous to the effect of Adjustment Powers on Defensive Powers - the effect is halved. The "Defensive Disads" are:

Dependence
Susceptibility
Vulnerability

[CTaylor]

You're the one I got the idea from in the first place, but forgot who it was :( sorry

So kudos for Phil and lets see this in the rules, it's simple, elegant, and easy to use.

[PhilFleischmann]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?
Sounds like you're trying to "politically correctize" it. How 'bout "Handicaps," "Hang-ups," "Drawbacks," "Challenges," or "Disabilities." Hmmm... It seems to me "Challenges" is most appropriate. To me, that's really what Disads are about. It isn't much fun to play a character that has no weaknesses, no vulnerabilities. Spiderman wouldn't be as interesting without his DNPCs, without his secret ID, or being wanted by the police. It isn't just plot hooks, it's character hooks. It's game- and strategy- hooks. Can you defeat your enemy despite the fact that he's holding your kids hostage? Despite the fact that you're vulnerable to his weapon? Despite the fact that the inside of his lair is lined with Killsyouite? Despite the fact that you are scrupulously law-abiding and refuse to use deadly force? Without revealing your secret ID? Overcoming your fear of water to get to his island base? etc.


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.
Good idea. I don't think "Physical Complication" etc., sounds as good as "Physical Disadvantage," or "Physically Challenged." The first sound more like a physics problem than something wrong with a particular character. Likewise, "Social Complication" sound more like something wierd about the society at large, rather than a difficulty that an individual character has to deal with.


Q: Should we change the way Disadvantages reward you for taking/using them?
No. Though I think some of them need to be re-costed. Enraged/Berserk, Dependence, and Susceptibility all seem to be too much of a disadvantage for the points they grant. In fact many of the Disads could stand to be bumped up in "price" if you want to allow characters to take fewer of them. I think that's a better solution than removing the point gain entirely, or simply increasing the base points.

GMs need to make sure that the Disads players take come into play, and are really worth their points. If they aren't willing to do that, they should disallow the disads, just like they impose other campaign limits. If a GM doesn't want Hunters showing up in his carefully planned plot, he should just say he doesn't want any of the PCs to have Hunteds.


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.
This is a good idea.


Q: Should Age/Normal Characteristic Maxima be removed as a Disadvantage?
NCM should just be a campaign rule that is either in effect or not for each particular campaign, depending on genre, et al. But Age should be retained as a disadvantage for those games that use the NCM rule.


Q: Should Physical Limitation be more granular, provide more options?
Frankly, I think ALL the Disadvantages should be more granular, provide more options. As others have said, there's no compelling reason why they only come in multiples of 5. If a disad gets +0 for happening on 8-, and +5 for 11- and +10 for 14-; then why not allow +1 for 9-, +3 for 10-, +7 for 12-, +8 for 13-, etc.


Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?
Q: Should Susceptibility and Dependence be combined into one Disadvantage?
They should both be expanded, and more points (which could allow them to be more granular). But I don't see much benefit to combining them. It might make it more confusing for newbies.

[BobGreenwade]

Sounds like you're trying to "politically correctize" it.Actually the idea behind changing the name from "Disadvantages" stems from the occasional confusion over their not being the opposite of Advantages. Every so often -- though it hasn't happened in a while now -- someone comes on the boards asking about a "-1/4 Disadvantage" or posing some other question about a "Disadvantage" when they really mean "Limitation" as a game term. Changing away from "Disadvantage" would help alleviate that apparent conflict.

[dsatow]

Actually the idea behind changing the name from "Disadvantages" stems from the occasional confusion over their not being the opposite of Advantages. Every so often -- though it hasn't happened in a while now -- someone comes on the boards asking about a "-1/4 Disadvantage" or posing some other question about a "Disadvantage" when they really mean "Limitation" as a game term. Changing away from "Disadvantage" would help alleviate that apparent conflict.

Yeah but its not as bad as being "CON stunned".;)

Quote heard at Dundracon
Player: "Damn, I am CON Stunned!"
GM: "What? The Con went up and hit you?"

Needless to say, the player didn't understand.

[Sean Waters]

Exactly! This is something I've been doing for years, and I've never had a problem with it. I don't know how many times I've posted the idea on the forums, but it's been *many*. You could do a search on "Disadvantages as Negative Powers".

I use Drain as a way to bestow a Disad on someone (with all the usual rules of Drain: goes against Power Defense, fades 5/turn, unless you buy it down, etc.) And you can also use Aid to provide temporary relief from someone's Disadvantage. (I've frequently given the example of "SuperShrink" who temporarily can Aid away someone's Psych Lim, or calm down someone who is Berserk.) You could also use Suppress (though you'd have to keep spending END). And even Transfer!

Don't forget when using this rule, and including in it 6th Edition, I hope, that there are some Disads that sbe treated as "Defensive Disadvantages" - analogous to the effect of Adjustment Powers on Defensive Powers - the effect is halved. The "Defensive Disads" are:

Dependence
Susceptibility
Vulnerability

This works if disadvantages are properly balanced. They are not as they assume that a disadvantaged character will have some way to compensate or that disadvantages that make a character unplayable will not be taken. An imposed disadvantage doesnt work like that. A 25 point drain could make someone blind, or paraplegic, or gain a total aversion to physical violence.

I'm sure you can make the mechanic work by sensible player/GM interaction, but I'm far from convinced that introducing it generally is a good idea.

[BobGreenwade]

Yeah but its not as bad as being "CON stunned".;)You can say that again!

[PhilFleischmann]

This works if disadvantages are properly balanced. They are not as they assume that a disadvantaged character will have some way to compensate or that disadvantages that make a character unplayable will not be taken. An imposed disadvantage doesnt work like that. A 25 point drain could make someone blind, or paraplegic, or gain a total aversion to physical violence.

I'm sure you can make the mechanic work by sensible player/GM interaction, but I'm far from convinced that introducing it generally is a good idea.
As I've said before (proabably every time I've posted the idea), a 25-point Drain to make someone blind takes about 8d6 of Drain - 80 Active points (or 9d6 if you want to use Standard Effect, and have it guaranteed). You ought to be able to do quite a bit of damage with an 80-point attack. That's the equivalent of 16d6 EB, 5d6+1 RKA, 8d6 NND, 8d6/8 DEF Entangle, ... And it fades at 5 points per turn - gone completely in a minute. If the target happens to have Power Defense, it's less effective, and if he has another targeting sense, it's of almost no use at all.

Also, if the target has other Sense powers in his Sight Group, those will have to be Drained off first. For example, if the target has N-Ray vision (10 points), IR (5), and UV (5), then he's spent an additional 20 points on his vision, and those 20 points are built "on top" of his normal vision. So the 25-point Drain, would (temporarily) remove those extra senses, and a tiny part (5 points' worth) of his normal vision.

This works the same was as any other Drain: If you want to Drain someone's STR down to 0, it will take more draining if he started with 50 STR, then if he started with 10.

And yes, we (Steve) may decide that some of the Disadvantages are under-costed (as is my opinion in some cases), and that Physical Limitations should be made more granular. In which case the "price" of blindness may be even higher.

[Susano]

Yeah but its not as bad as being "CON stunned".;)


I can't stand that term.

[archermoo]

I can't stand that term.

You and me both. The only times I've ever seen confusion about what "Stunned" meant in an actual game was because someone was using "CON-Stunned" and confusing people. :)

[CTaylor]

I've heard people use "conned" before for stunned.


A 25 point drain could make someone blind, or paraplegic, or gain a total aversion to physical violence.

Arguably any attack that lowers your DCV or directly affects combat should be treated as a defense (and halved). 25 points of drain is quite a bit though, if you think about it.

[James Gillen]

I can't stand that term.

Frankly I'd never heard it before I saw the 6th Edition threads. After all in game terms you don't GET Stunned until damage exceeds CON. So it's redundant.

JG

[James Gillen]

I've heard people use "conned" before for stunned.

I prefer "Bonked."

JG

[Sean Waters]

As I've said before (proabably every time I've posted the idea), a 25-point Drain to make someone blind takes about 8d6 of Drain - 80 Active points (or 9d6 if you want to use Standard Effect, and have it guaranteed). You ought to be able to do quite a bit of damage with an 80-point attack. That's the equivalent of 16d6 EB, 5d6+1 RKA, 8d6 NND, 8d6/8 DEF Entangle, ... And it fades at 5 points per turn - gone completely in a minute. If the target happens to have Power Defense, it's less effective, and if he has another targeting sense, it's of almost no use at all.

Also, if the target has other Sense powers in his Sight Group, those will have to be Drained off first. For example, if the target has N-Ray vision (10 points), IR (5), and UV (5), then he's spent an additional 20 points on his vision, and those 20 points are built "on top" of his normal vision. So the 25-point Drain, would (temporarily) remove those extra senses, and a tiny part (5 points' worth) of his normal vision.

This works the same was as any other Drain: If you want to Drain someone's STR down to 0, it will take more draining if he started with 50 STR, then if he started with 10.

And yes, we (Steve) may decide that some of the Disadvantages are under-costed (as is my opinion in some cases), and that Physical Limitations should be made more granular. In which case the "price" of blindness may be even higher.

8d6 or 2 hits from a 4d6 drain...

[GamePhil]

8d6 or 2 hits from a 4d6 drain...

No different from a Drain INT for many characters, really.

Of course, that's why I never liked the negative Characteristic mechanism as it is currently in the rules, but that's another issue.

If Drains are allowed to do this, I'd at least like to see an Adder or Advantage for them, much as if 0 Characteristics go in I'd like a similar construct for them. Some Disadvantages make perfect sense for this, however, such as Luck/Unluck.

[archermoo]

I've heard people use "conned" before for stunned.


Gack, glad I'd never heard that one before. I can kind of understand why people would replace well defined gamed terms with their own terms in their own game. I don't think I'll ever understand why they would then assume that anyone that they haven't already explained that new term to would understand what they're talking about.

*is boggled*

[Sean Waters]

No different from a Drain INT for many characters, really.

Of course, that's why I never liked the negative Characteristic mechanism as it is currently in the rules, but that's another issue.

If Drains are allowed to do this, I'd at least like to see an Adder or Advantage for them, much as if 0 Characteristics go in I'd like a similar construct for them. Some Disadvantages make perfect sense for this, however, such as Luck/Unluck.


Phil (the other Phil) and I have kicked this around before. The flip side is using Aid to grant abilities. My biggest problem remains that a total fear of confined spaces is 15 points. Being unable to walk is 20 points. Always changing into a villain when you see a gold framed picture of Claudia Schiffer is 20 points. Going berserk over half the time in teh presence of innocent bystanders is 25 points. Taking DOUBLE STUN from sonic attacks is 10 points.

10 points. Sheesh.

This ability could do everything transform and mind control, mental illusions and goodness knows what else can do. Where is the structure? Where is the control? How, when it comes down to it, would this work?

[GamePhil]

Just call me GP. My name is not, in fact, Phil :)


Phil (the other Phil) and I have kicked this around before. The flip side is using Aid to grant abilities. My biggest problem remains that a total fear of confined spaces is 15 points. Being unable to walk is 20 points. Always changing into a villain when you see a gold framed picture of Claudia Schiffer is 20 points. Going berserk over half the time in teh presence of innocent bystanders is 25 points. Taking DOUBLE STUN from sonic attacks is 10 points.

10 points. Sheesh.


Nah, 30 points. If any player of mine had a Drain to create this effect, and any Sonic Attacks or an ally with same, the commonality level is going to automatically be Very Common. Likewise, giving someone a Total Fear Of Confined Spaces if he is in a confined space is going to be 25, and so on.



This ability could do everything transform and mind control, mental illusions and goodness knows what else can do. Where is the structure? Where is the control? How, when it comes down to it, would this work?

Largely, I agree, but I think with some work to differentiate it, this might prove a useful new construct. I know that for a (now sadly defunct) Digital Hero article I was about to send in I had to jump through hoops to Drain Luck down into Unluck levels. I think that at the very least when a Power has a logical continuity into a Disadvantage, this could be a useful change.

[Squidkid]

This is a loophole to NCM that I really wish would get closed regardless of weather NCM remains a Disadvantage or becomes purely a campaign ground-rule. Characteristics bought as powers should not get a free pass around NCM. Not only can you buy the stat cheaper because you applied limitations (focus, oihid, no figured, whatever) but you also get to circumvent NCM? Where's the downside? Characteristics can be Drained/Suppressed weather they're bought as Characteristics or Powers.

Where's the downside? The Foci. Take them away from time to time and players quickly learn the downside. I don't see this as a loophole at all if the GM is paying attention.

[CTaylor]

Right, with disads that have a frequency modifier, the modifier would have to be presumed at the most common setting, because you're targeting the character. The GM would have to assume, before the power is used, that it will be used in such a way that immediately will take advantage of the disadvantage. Psychological Limitations have to be "very common" susceptibility has to be "very common" and so on. That changes the cost to be pretty significant and characters have to have a sizable amount of points into it to work. And any power defense will make it much harder.

I think it would need playtesting with some really twisted, minmaxing rule abusers (I know just the guy, sadly he moved away) but I think the concept is solid, elegant, and easy to understand.

[PhilFleischmann]

Nah, 30 points. If any player of mine had a Drain to create this effect, and any Sonic Attacks or an ally with same, the commonality level is going to automatically be Very Common. Likewise, giving someone a Total Fear Of Confined Spaces if he is in a confined space is going to be 25, and so on.
And not only that, but as I've already said, a Vulnerability should be considered a Defensive Disadvantage (working sort of the opposite way from Damage Reduction), so the effect is halved. I wouldn't necessarily say that the commonality level will *always* be Very Common, but it certainly would be if the character with the Drain: Cause Vulnerability *himself* has the particular thing he makes others Vulnerable to. And it would be Common *at least* if he's got a regular teammate/partner that has it.

But the main point is that if Adjusting (up or down) a Disadvantage is inappropriately priced, it's more likely that the Disadvantage itself is inappropriately priced, not the Adjustment Power. As I've already said earlier on this thread: many of the Disads ought to be repriced (upward), particularly Berserk/Enraged, and Susceptibility, and probably Dependence and Vulnerability, too.


This ability could do everything transform and mind control, mental illusions and goodness knows what else can do. Where is the structure? Where is the control? How, when it comes down to it, would this work?
It would work exactly how I said it would work. Just like any other Adjustment Power. Adjustment Powers are already pretty well defined (moreso than the other powers you mentioned). Remember that a 25-point Drain is an 80-point power, which could already, by the RAW, Drain away 12 BODY from someone. Or 50 END.

And BTW, it really doesn't take the place of *any* Transform or Mind Control or Mental Illusions. For example, what Physical Limitation(s) would represent turning someone to Stone? Remember that Blind is already 25 points by itself. So turning to stone is at least three or four different 25-point Phys Lims.

Likewise simulating Mind Control or Mental Illusions with Drain adding Psych Lims is very expensive and inefficient. The frequency levels would have to go beyond "Very Common" into "All the Time"/"Right Now".

[Opal]

Using Drain to inflict disads was one of those fringe rule-tricks you saw bandied about before they finally came up with transfrom. Drain: Luck draining you into to having unluck, is the one I remember most vividly.

[CTaylor]

Transform is a pretty terrible answer, too bad they didn't have both.

And I remember Red October fondly.

[Sean Waters]

Just call me GP. My name is not, in fact, Phil :)



Nah, 30 points. If any player of mine had a Drain to create this effect, and any Sonic Attacks or an ally with same, the commonality level is going to automatically be Very Common. Likewise, giving someone a Total Fear Of Confined Spaces if he is in a confined space is going to be 25, and so on.

Going to have to get angry...

I appreciate the point but it makes no sense to do it that way. Changing limitation values like that makes any kind of common game system impossible. Do you give stronmg characters with accessible foci less of a cost break beacuse they are harder to disarm? Why would you have to work harder to make someone claustrophobic in a lift than in a field?

Anyway, let us take a less contraversial example of vulnerability: x1 1/2 damage from physical attacks (always very common, so no problem there) is 15 points. That's applied BEFORE defences and doesn't actually affect defences at all, so, I appreciate Phil would double the cost but that is another amendment - it is not an application of an existing rule.

Even if you DO double the cost, 9d6 would get you your disadvantage, that (from a single attack) would be a 9d6 drain, or 90 active points. The same drain against PD would reduce the PD by 15 points (9d6 rolls 31-32, so averages 15 or 16 after halving).

Compare:

12d6 campaign, average defences 25 DEF. Not unreasonable, but it works pretty much where ever you set the baselines....

Disadvantage (x1 1/2 stun) = 84 stun against 25 DEF, or 59 stun through. Goodnight.

Drain = 42 stun against 10 DEF or 32 stun through. Probably stunned but not out.

So the disadvantage route is way, way, way more effective.

Moreover, if the opponent's 25 def was mainly made up of force field, the PD drain would be largely ineffective. The disadvantage route doesn't care how the defences are built.



Largely, I agree, but I think with some work to differentiate it, this might prove a useful new construct. I know that for a (now sadly defunct) Digital Hero article I was about to send in I had to jump through hoops to Drain Luck down into Unluck levels. I think that at the very least when a Power has a logical continuity into a Disadvantage, this could be a useful change.

I'd agree there. I'd allow people to buy luck and define it as bad luck for others. Probably.

The trouble is, and I keep coming back here, disadvantages are not point balanced in the way that powers are, so some shmuck like me can come along and rampantly abuse the mechanic without even really trying.

[GamePhil]

Going to have to get angry...


Than I shan't talk to you about it any longer. Anyone else wish to argue Sean's points so he doesn't have to get angry?

[CTaylor]

OK before going further I'd like to offer the thought that if you are building an entirely new use of a power, then rules to define how it works are part of that build, not something unreasonable or odd. Thus, the argument that "it is not an application of an existing rule" while accurate is irrelevant, we're building a new rule, so that's not a significant aspect.


Even if you DO double the cost, 9d6 would get you your disadvantage, that (from a single attack) would be a 9d6 drain, or 90 active points. The same drain against PD would reduce the PD by 15 points (9d6 rolls 31-32, so averages 15 or 16 after halving).

True, and you can do it every time. Yet that drain means every eneergy attack in the game hurts worse, and does more Body damage; but with the disad, only fire does, and only stun (or Body, depending on how it was purchased, but you get my point: one or the other).

At the same time, the increase of damage might be as little as 2 points, or have no effect if someone has big enough defenses. Think of it this way:

You increase someone's vulnerability to fire damage by x1 1/2 stun, requiring a 15 point drain. To achieve this, because it is a defense, you'll need to get at least 30 points of drain, as noted above. The character who has been affected with this drain now is vulnerable to fire damage.

He suffers a blast of 30 points of stun, which becomes 45 with the vulnerability. Does this hurt? Maybe, but maybe not: his defenses might be enough this isn't particularly a problem. The campaign that Sean postulates here apparently has 90 active point attacks in it, which means the blast will more likely be around 63 stun on average, which then becomes a 95 stun attack with the vulnerability.

Yet what are the defenses when an 18D6 energy blast is not an unreasonable appearance in the game? That looks like a monstrous amount of stun to me (I'm a small game guy, I hate the 350 point superhero costs, my fantasy hero games start at 75-100 total, etc). Seems to me if you're facing this kind of blast, characters will be built to take them without being wiped out, typically characters will build their guys that they can take the average attack in the game (or dodge it) without being stunned in one shot, and bricks can shrug off most if not all of it.

So this wouldn't just drop the guy, and it probably would just stun him. Isn't that reasonable? What would losing 15-17 points do, wouldn't that most cause the same attacks without the vulnerability to likely stun him too?

Now this discussion brings up an interesting point: is vulnerability enough points? Is taking extra damage only worth 15 points?

[jye42]

One problem i have noticed with disadvantages its not always clearly defined the in-game ramifications for a disadvantage.

This disadvantages that do this right are things like susceptibility, vulnerability and dependence. they give you real figures to work with rather than a subjective idea.

As an example i would like to see physical limitations defined as penalties to perception, movement .etc and maybe even giving say -OCV to attack a target other than the one you hate for psych lims to represent an unwillingness to fight against your own psyche

[Sociotard]

A note for Enraged:

I think the enraged mechanic could be easily expanded for more stimuli-response situations. Right now these all get shuttled off to Physical Disadvantage, but I think they could be at home here.

Examples?

Panicked: when injured. Go 11-, recover 14-. For a pain-in-the-butt horse. Every time it gets hurt it has to roll to see if it flees the battlefield. It has to keep right on fleeing until it recovers.

Distracted: by shiny things. Go 14-, recover 8-. For the pixie on the team. "We're in the middle of combat!" "but I found this shiny coin, and I have to play with it. I mean, it's shiny!"

[Netzilla]

A note for Enraged:

I think the enraged mechanic could be easily expanded for more stimuli-response situations. Right now these all get shuttled off to Physical Disadvantage, but I think they could be at home here.

Examples?

Panicked: when injured. Go 11-, recover 14-. For a pain-in-the-butt horse. Every time it gets hurt it has to roll to see if it flees the battlefield. It has to keep right on fleeing until it recovers.

Distracted: by shiny things. Go 14-, recover 8-. For the pixie on the team. "We're in the middle of combat!" "but I found this shiny coin, and I have to play with it. I mean, it's shiny!"

This is a cool idea. A simple and elegant change that facilitates greater flexibility without increasing complexity. Rep added.

[BobGreenwade]

A note for Enraged:

I think the enraged mechanic could be easily expanded for more stimuli-response situations. Right now these all get shuttled off to Physical Disadvantage, but I think they could be at home here.

Examples?

Panicked: when injured. Go 11-, recover 14-. For a pain-in-the-butt horse. Every time it gets hurt it has to roll to see if it flees the battlefield. It has to keep right on fleeing until it recovers.

Distracted: by shiny things. Go 14-, recover 8-. For the pixie on the team. "We're in the middle of combat!" "but I found this shiny coin, and I have to play with it. I mean, it's shiny!"


This is a cool idea. A simple and elegant change that facilitates greater flexibility without increasing complexity. Rep added.Ditto. (Except for the rep part; I have to spread more around.) The change should add no more than one paragraph to the text and allow for a lot more options.

[CTaylor]

That is a clever idea, and it would build enrage/berserk into a more fleshed out disad like most of the others. At present it's pretty limited in it's use.

There's probably a way to work that in reverse for Hunted as well (that would fold in reputation and social disadvantage): instead of how you react to your environment, it's how your environment reacts to you. Sort of like dependence/susceptibility

[BobGreenwade]

Here's a couple of additional thoughts on Disadvantages:

1) I'd like to see an expansion of Vulnerability that affects aspects of an incoming other than damage or effect. For example, a character might be 1/2 DCV versus a particular type of attack -- say, a certain type of Troll versus magic, or a guy in metallic armor versus electrical attacks. Or someone might take extra steps down the Time Chart when recovering from Flashes or Adjustment Powers. Currently this would be done with a Physical Limitation, but a more concrete way of doing it would be very welcome.

2) Something else that's typically done with either Physical Limitations or "buy-downs" is reductions in abilities, such as lowered DCV for size or reduced Running and Swimming. I'd like to see these in the Disadvantages block. Right now running and Swimming are bought down in the Powers block for published characters or the Characteristics block in HD, which is mostly okay except for the difference between the two, while lowered DCV or anything else is represented by a Physical Limitation whose value isn't directly reflective of the mechanical effects -- a Physical Limitation causing -4 DCV can be worth the same as one causing -6 DCV. Buying, for example, negative DCV levels (at -1 per 5 points, the same cost as a bonus) or some similar structure would help more precisely quantify these penalties.

[Hugh Neilson]

Here's a couple of additional thoughts on Disadvantages:

[QUOTE=BobGreenwade;1563347]1) I'd like to see an expansion of Vulnerability that affects aspects of an incoming other than damage or effect. For example, a character might be 1/2 DCV versus a particular type of attack -- say, a certain type of Troll versus magic, or a guy in metallic armor versus electrical attacks. Or someone might take extra steps down the Time Chart when recovering from Flashes or Adjustment Powers. Currently this would be done with a Physical Limitation, but a more concrete way of doing it would be very welcome.

I think that's a good addition to the system.


2) Something else that's typically done with either Physical Limitations or "buy-downs" is reductions in abilities, such as lowered DCV for size or reduced Running and Swimming. I'd like to see these in the Disadvantages block. Right now running and Swimming are bought down in the Powers block for published characters or the Characteristics block in HD, which is mostly okay except for the difference between the two, while lowered DCV or anything else is represented by a Physical Limitation whose value isn't directly reflective of the mechanical effects -- a Physical Limitation causing -4 DCV can be worth the same as one causing -6 DCV. Buying, for example, negative DCV levels (at -1 per 5 points, the same cost as a bonus) or some similar structure would help more precisely quantify these penalties.

I'd like to see a more concrete line drawn between "sell backs" and "disadvantages". They have different character construction effects, and it seems inconsistent that I take a Phys Lim for "cannot leap" as a disadvantage (for 6 points if my leap should have been 6") but sell back my running in the Powers section. Aesthetically, I'd say anything that can be sold back in part or in whole should be reflected in the Char/Powers block, not in Disadvantages.

[GamePhil]

I'd prefer a system where all the stuff you start with is sold back rather than taking a Disadvantage for it, including Vision and Limbs. It removes certain soft rules (it means giving up Sight on your character doesn't change in cost depending on whether or not you have Radar), and means that abilities that cancel each other out (again, Radar for Sight) are taken into account before you get into Disadvantages.

Of course, the drawback is that you'd have to define the costs for all of that, but it might be fairly straightforward to apply it only to the easy and obvious things (Sight can easily be bought as a Detect, but ignore the limbs).

That cancels a lot of the Physical Limitations, but that disadvantage should probably change its name, anyway. I'm not sure to what: Inherent Limitations?

[AnotherSkip]

I have built a few characters with the discussed disads here

One was a Super Scientist (well he was a rookie wanna be, but you get the idea) with a "Berzerk" that was "obsessed Scientist" instead (goin for the Reed Richards problem basically). It made a lot of sense in that he needed to make rolls to be drawn away from his scientific exploration in order to deal with other problems (like the universe exploding)

another was a Character with NCm and +15 STR Power. part of the justification for NCM was that he could NOT adjust his powers in any way shape or form, he could not increase his Strength or other Mystical Powers (A magical club and Invulnerability) through anything he could do, And he could not buy up his other attr above NCm without paying the Price. He was a result of a mystical accident and those were things that he had no control over. NCM made sense in that fashion.

[pinecone]

The total rework of disadds is tweaking my mellon, but I need to process before I really have an answer....It sounds exactly how M&M does it.......and it does work for them....

I like setting a bunch of lims though......for me that is when I really get a hook on who this dude is....

[CTaylor]

I wouldn't want a total rework, but I would support expanding and explaining how to use existing disadvantages more broadly to cover existing disads.

[Vondy]

Here's a couple of additional thoughts on Disadvantages:

1) I'd like to see an expansion of Vulnerability that affects aspects of an incoming other than damage or effect. For example, a character might be 1/2 DCV versus a particular type of attack -- say, a certain type of Troll versus magic, or a guy in metallic armor versus electrical attacks. Or someone might take extra steps down the Time Chart when recovering from Flashes or Adjustment Powers. Currently this would be done with a Physical Limitation, but a more concrete way of doing it would be very welcome.
.

Its just a matter of assigning values for 1/2 dcv, etc.

Snagged.

[Klaus Mogensen]

As I see it, Disadvantages fall into two distinctly different groups:

Disabilities that limit what the character can do or withstand, e.g. Physical Limitation, Susceptibility, Vulnerability.
Complications that make life difficult for the character (and more interesting for the player) without actually reducing his/her abilities, e.g. Psychological Limitation, Rivalry, Secret Identity.

I think the two types should be handled differently. Disabilities are more or less the inverse of Powers and other abilities you buy with character points, so it's reasonable to get character points for taking such.

Complications are something else, however. One way to handle Complications may be through hero points, as has been suggested several times.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Complication kind of Disadvantage sometimes can be an advantage. E.g., a Secret Identity can be used to infiltrate the enemy, and a Hunted can be used to lure the enemy into a trap. A Dependent NPC can sometimes act as a Contact, and Reputation is just as often an advantage as a disadvantage. If the hero-point solution is chosen, the character may have to pay a hero point in order to use a Complication to his advantage.

Suddenly, the Complication type of Disadvantage becomes a lot like Perks, which may also at times be disadvantageous. E.g., Police Powers include a certain responsibility, Contacts may demand a favor, etc. This suggests a common mechanic for handling background apects like Perks and Complications:


Background Aspects
Background Aspects are relationships, psychological or social factors, and affiliations that flesh out where a character is situated in relation to the setting as a whole. Examples are having a reputation, belonging to an organization, having contacts or loved ones that depend on you and/or may help you, possessing a social, physical or racial stigma, having a particular social or political standing, or having an enemy or rival.

Background Aspects can at times complicate life for the character and at other times make life easier. Belonging to a social elite may carry respect, but also includes responsibilities. You can ask a contact for information or a favor, but they may at times require a favor in return. Being ugly or beautiful may repel/attract people that you want to interact with, but may also repel/attract people that you don't want to interact with.

Whenever a Background Aspect comes into play in a manner that complicates matters for the character, the character gets a hero point. If the character wants to use a Background Aspect in a manner that helps him/her, the character has to spend a hero point.

A character can have as many or few Background Aspects as the player desires (and the GM allows) at no cost (or gain) in character points.
Some may object that a character can't use a Background Aspect in his favor if he's run out of hero points. Well, a character can't use a Power if he's run out of END, either. Perhaps an option could be included to 'borrow' hero points and treat a hero point deficit like Unluck (as in the Good/Bad Stuff rules in Amber Diceless).

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[CTaylor]

Some good thoughts there, and the big advantage of mainstreaming hero points is that they are a bit more clarified and controlled, and it lets you avoid the humiliating "I had to break through that wall to save my DNPC and bounced off it because I rolled all ones" effect. Some superhero you are.

[nexus]

Some good thoughts there, and the big advantage of mainstreaming hero points is that they are a bit more clarified and controlled, and it lets you avoid the humiliating "I had to break through that wall to save my DNPC and bounced off it because I rolled all ones" effect. Some superhero you are.

While I largely agree I don't think failure is necessarily unheroic and that Hero point while a useful addition shouldn't be mandatory. They don't work for all genres, settings or moods. That's part of the reason I oppose them being "hardwired" in the system such as being replacing characters point from Disadvantages.

[Vondy]

Some good thoughts there, and the big advantage of mainstreaming hero points is that they are a bit more clarified and controlled, and it lets you avoid the humiliating "I had to break through that wall to save my DNPC and bounced off it because I rolled all ones" effect. Some superhero you are.

A house rule, but one I found useful for superheroic games: a character who takes a full phase action to attack automatically does max body damage to inanimate objects. It avoids these little glitches and falls into the "he's fricken' tarzan, darnit'!" rule of don't make them roll for shtick.

[pinecone]

Ok I have reread M&M 2. I still don't support changing in that direction. The complications give ya Hero points style basicly says "Build your char, if you take the classic bits you get a cookie" I like the complications to be more organic.

For me taking lims really gets the character fixed in my mind, and makes him/her "real" in my imagination.

Adding a class of lims that give Hero points sounds very cool to me though, and might be much more usefull in Heroic games where lims are much harder to use....

[James Gillen]

A house rule, but one I found useful for superheroic games: a character who takes a full phase action to attack automatically does max body damage to inanimate objects. It avoids these little glitches and falls into the "he's fricken' tarzan, darnit'!" rule of don't make them roll for shtick.

I would have a similar rule if the character trying to break through a wall yells "O YEHHHHH" like the Kool-Aid Man.

JG

[Vondy]

Ok I have reread M&M 2. I still don't support changing in that direction. The complications give ya Hero points style basicly says "Build your char, if you take the classic bits you get a cookie" I like the complications to be more organic.

For me taking lims really gets the character fixed in my mind, and makes him/her "real" in my imagination.

Adding a class of lims that give Hero points sounds very cool to me though, and might be much more usefull in Heroic games where lims are much harder to use....

This is why I tend to be pretty liberal about weak disadvantages that are really defining elements. I know some people are militant about disadvantages that don't disadvantage the character not being worth any points and insist that's the only interpretation, but I've found the ones that "fix the character in the players mind" are really the most valuable ones because players who have strongly defined characters play them better at run time. As such, not every disad on a sheet in my games is creates a serious disadvantage. For me, the point is to define the character and give potential plot elements. Sometimes that disadvantages the character, sometimes not, but I don't care insofar as it improves play.

[casualplayer]

We should rename them Features so we can tell complaining players "That's not a Flaw, that's a Feature. :D

I could hope that the pricing structure of Disadvantages was changed to be more like other character constructs, in effect base points modified by Advantages and Limitations. The Adder-Diminisher structure in place now makes it easier to amass a nice round number of points of Disadvantages but it's another build structure to have to learn when introduced to the game which increases the difficulty. Many of us have been around since there were odd costed Disadvantages and I don't recall it being too onerous.

[CTaylor]

I am not particularly opposed to shifting around how disads work, but at the same time I don't see a particular need. Whether or not people take the disadvantages for the points or just because they always take the disads is irrelevant, they are a useful, functional part of an effective, popular game so there's no need to change them unless something really great can be added by doing so.

Steve's point about some of the disads granting hero points when they work is a great idea, even if it's stolen from another game, and that's fine by me. His point about too many points in the basic rules for disads is one that I've always had a problem with in Hero. Anything over 100 points in disads and many character designs will be challenged to come up with something that fits the concept. Anything over 150 and you're just adding disads to get points, not to build a character. Hero has always required too many points in disads at the superheroic level, and the 5th edition pointless inflation of points in the base Champions game just made this worse.

[Vondy]

Anything over 100 points in disads and many character designs will be challenged to come up with something that fits the concept. Anything over 150 and you're just adding disads to get points, not to build a character. Hero has always required too many points in disads at the superheroic level, and the 5th edition pointless inflation of points in the base Champions game just made this worse.

I declare shenanigans.

I've frequently come up with characters who more than 150 points in disadvantages and taken no points for the extra ones. I take them because they fit the character. My players have often done this as well.

In short: speak for yourself.

[ideasmith]

I am not particularly opposed to shifting around how disads work, but at the same time I don't see a particular need. Whether or not people take the disadvantages for the points or just because they always take the disads is irrelevant, they are a useful, functional part of an effective, popular game so there's no need to change them unless something really great can be added by doing so.

Steve's point about some of the disads granting hero points when they work is a great idea, even if it's stolen from another game, and that's fine by me. His point about too many points in the basic rules for disads is one that I've always had a problem with in Hero. Anything over 100 points in disads and many character designs will be challenged to come up with something that fits the concept. Anything over 150 and you're just adding disads to get points, not to build a character. Hero has always required too many points in disads at the superheroic level, and the 5th edition pointless inflation of points in the base Champions game just made this worse.

Frankly, if I can't come up with 150 points of Disads for a concept, I throw said concept in the spare parts drawer and start another concept.

[CTaylor]

Sure, you can come up with a character with that level of disads. But is the average superhero a bundle of neuroses, enemies, physical deformities and vulnerabilities? According to the source material, no. According to the average character, no. Thus, the point requirements are too high.

Nothing stops you from taking extra disads, I do it often. Lowering the max doesn't stop you from getting disadvantages that fit your character. In fact, in my campaign if you do so, and the disads go off anyway, you get a hero point.

[James Gillen]

We should rename them Features so we can tell complaining players "That's not a Flaw, that's a Feature. :D

Ah, I see you've worked in tech support.

JG

[Opal]

I. Anything over 100 points in disads and many character designs will be challenged to come up with something that fits the concept. Anything over 150 and you're just adding disads to get points, not to build a character.It really depends on the concept, I've had characters who had over 150 in disads (and this was when the value of some of those disads was being halved) and others who had under 100.

When the hard 150pt limit came down, and the halving went away, though, I agree that 150 became much more a target than a limit, and people often hit 150 when they don't really need to.



Hero has always required too many points in disads at the superheroic level, and the 5th edition pointless inflation of points in the base Champions game just made this worse.
Well, they've never been /required/, you could build a very effective character in the old days using lots of limitations and have relatively few disadvantages, for instance. But, yes, it can take a lot of points to build a super, and disads, frameworks, figured characteristics and limitations, all used to go into making that happen for 100+disads.

I think the intent of the point inflation was to decrease reliance on limitations and increase investment in skills. At least, that would fit with the skill-heavy packages in 5th ed products; and with the reigning in of limitations like OHID, OIF, and -1/4 limitted powers that "aren't really limitations."

[Vondy]

Sure, you can come up with a character with that level of disads. But is the average superhero a bundle of neuroses, enemies, physical deformities and vulnerabilities? According to the source material, no. According to the average character, no. Thus, the point requirements are too high.

Nothing stops you from taking extra disads, I do it often. Lowering the max doesn't stop you from getting disadvantages that fit your character. In fact, in my campaign if you do so, and the disads go off anyway, you get a hero point.

I do not agree with your implicit characterization, or your assumption that the way you do it in your game should be the basis of rule changes. Esp. when the base and disad points are something set by the GM and those in the book are just recommendations, not rules.

[Gary]

Vulnerabilities should not be multiples of damage. They should add a flat amount based on how many pts the Character gets back. My suggestion is:

5 pts for +1 DC added to the attack

+5 pts for every doubling of the DCs added to the attack.

So a vulnerability would have a base of 5 pts for 1DC, 10 pts for 2 DCs, 15 pts for 4 DCs, 20 pts for 8 DCs, etc.

Example

Faerie Queen has a +4 DC Vulnerability to Cold Iron for +15 pts. If she's hit with a 8d6 attack from a Cold Iron staff, she takes 12d6 damage from the attack.

[Trebuchet]

Vulnerabilities should not be multiples of damage. They should add a flat amount based on how many pts the Character gets back. My suggestion is:

5 pts for +1 DC added to the attack

+5 pts for every doubling of the DCs added to the attack.

So a vulnerability would have a base of 5 pts for 1DC, 10 pts for 2 DCs, 15 pts for 4 DCs, 20 pts for 8 DCs, etc.

Example

Faerie Queen has a +4 DC Vulnerability to Cold Iron for +15 pts. If she's hit with a 8d6 attack from a Cold Iron staff, she takes 12d6 damage from the attack.I like that. :thumbup:

Welcome back, O Monkey Genius! :bounce:

[CTaylor]

I do not agree with your implicit characterization, or your assumption that the way you do it in your game should be the basis of rule changes.

Given that I referenced the source material and genre basis for games, not my campaigns, I'm not sure where this came from.

My thoughts were that the listed suggestions be changed because a lot of newer players will take them as requirements and rules; even Steve Long noted in his initial post that the suggest requirements are probably too high.

[BlackSword]

I've frequently come up with characters who more than 150 points in disadvantages and taken no points for the extra ones. I take them because they fit the character. My players have often done this as well.
I think a lot of it comes from philosophy of how people assign disads. On this board I have seen a character with maybe 50 points of disads which all came down to (IMO) a single flaw, skirtchaser. Both the player and GM defended the build. I am not saying that this is your style or how you get so many points from disads D-Man, but using it as an example to show the philosophical differences in how groups cost and choose disadvantages.

For my group we typically allow up to half the points in "GM assigned disads," which allows flexibility for the GM, and provides for that grey area of how the characters (and players) affect the game world and find ways to irritate the GM, er I mean, NPCs.

[Gary]

I like that. :thumbup:

Welcome back, O Monkey Genius! :bounce:

Thanks Treb!

After thinking it over, I think I'd start it at +2DC for 5 pts. If you start at +1DC, it's less limiting than a Susceptibility since you get defenses vs a Vulnerability and not vs a Susceptibility.

One way to handle it might be to fold Vul and Susc into one Disadvantage. The value would be 5 pts per +1DC for a Susc, but you get no defenses vs it. You would get defenses vs a Vul, but the Disadvantage value would be halved.

So 5 pts would get you +1DC Susc, but +2DC Vul, 10 pts would get you +2DC Susc but +4DC Vul, etc.

[BobGreenwade]

I've been giving some thought to expanding the Vulnerability Disadvantage, too, besides the already-mentioned possibility of giving extended and intermediate levels of frequency to those already in the list.

First, with a Stop Sign, I think I'd allow for more than 2x results. I repeat: put a Stop Sign on this one.

Second, the Vulnerability construct can also be used for "unintended effects" -- for example, a character who takes STUN from Flash attacks (as the STUN rolled on the dice), or who takes BODY damage from otherwise harmless NNDs.

Third, the Vulnerability construct can also be used for "feedback effects," for when the character takes the STUN and BODY damage dished out to someone else. A frequent example would be two characters who are identical twins, and share such a close psychic bond that a punch against either damages both.

This is all in the name of expanding the system's options, of course. :)

[CTaylor]

Second, the Vulnerability construct can also be used for "unintended effects" -- for example, a character who takes STUN from Flash attacks (as the STUN rolled on the dice), or who takes BODY damage from otherwise harmless NNDs.

I use susceptibility for that (takes x dice of stun only from flash) but this is a thought.

[BobGreenwade]

I use susceptibility for that (takes x dice of stun only from flash) but this is a thought.So do most current writeups. The problem with that is that using Susceptibility sets a specific, fixed number of dice, whereas Vulnerability keeps it proportional to the original attack.

[xowl]

I really, really like the idea of disadvantages giving you something only when then make a difference. Using a Hero Points-type system and giving a player the point when that Hunted actually shows up would be great.

But they need to balance somehow. A DNPC, a Hunted, and a Psych Lim might not really be worth the same number of Hero Points. Or maybe they should.

And Unluck needs re-thinking in this case. Giving a bennie when Unluck kicks in is a lot like it not taking effect. Maybe get the Hero Point after the situation which the Unluck affected?

[steamteck]

. His point about too many points in the basic rules for disads is one that I've always had a problem with in Hero. Anything over 100 points in disads and many character designs will be challenged to come up with something that fits the concept. Anything over 150 and you're just adding disads to get points, not to build a character. Hero has always required too many points in disads at the superheroic level, and the 5th edition pointless inflation of points in the base Champions game just made this worse.


Funny, everyone in our group has at least several times taken disadvantages over their limit they get no points for to help round out the character concept. I guess we just really get into our characters

[steamteck]

Frankly, if I can't come up with 150 points of Disads for a concept, I throw said concept in the spare parts drawer and start another concept.

Exactly!!

[steamteck]

Vulnerabilities should not be multiples of damage. They should add a flat amount based on how many pts the Character gets back. My suggestion is:

5 pts for +1 DC added to the attack

+5 pts for every doubling of the DCs added to the attack.

So a vulnerability would have a base of 5 pts for 1DC, 10 pts for 2 DCs, 15 pts for 4 DCs, 20 pts for 8 DCs, etc.

Example

Faerie Queen has a +4 DC Vulnerability to Cold Iron for +15 pts. If she's hit with a 8d6 attack from a Cold Iron staff, she takes 12d6 damage from the attack.


i like that also. I never liked any of the multiples for damage in HERO.

[xowl]

I spent some time playing around with the "bennies for disads" concept yesterday and ran into some interesting observations.

* A disad that happens more often (say, 14- versus 8-) is no longer more limiting; it might even be more desirable. Since the disad obly provides its compensation when it occurs, a 14- gives Hero Points far more often. Ideally, it should be a wash: the compensation for appearance should balance the hassle of dealing with it (as should the fun, of course).

* Certain disads just don't work with the concept:
- Unluck (unless Unluck compensates in proportion to rolled Unluck effect and after the Unlucky situation ends)
- Age
- Money (the negative cost version)
* The always-affecting disads (Age and Money) still seem worth Character Points to me, but maybe not
* The number of Hero Points awarded should be proportional to the old disad cost, probably at 1 per 5 points of disad
* In general, the Hero Points should be available when dealing with the disad
* The same disad should not provide Hero Points more that once per scene (e.g., a Succeptibility to fire [I'm looking at you, Mercurian Manchaser!] should not give a compensation every phase that a character is hit with his opponent's Fire Blast). This is probably obvious, but worth stating for those players in Rules Pre-law.

I don't have the supplement that describes Hero Points, so I'm not sure what the current implementation allows them to do; I'm basing my thoughts on what other bennie systems do and my own thoughts about what I'd let my players use them for (and my examples have proved pretty cool, so I really like the idea).

[xowl]

At the risk of annoying you all....

I did a write-up for my players on how I'm thinking of using the bennies-for-disads idea.

Since I don't have the Hero Points rules, I made some up (as all good GMs do) and decided I would let them use a point to a) add +1 to a roll retroactively, b) add +5 Active Points to one use of an effect retroactively (as a free Push, with no increased END cost), or c) purchase Skills (or Talents, with the GM approval) for one scene -- but not CSL or any Skill Level costing over 3 points. Skill adders may not be purchased retroactively.

I awarded 1 Hero Point per 5 points of disad when a disad takes effect and I decided that the maximum number of Hero Points I'd let them bank is their (total disad points/5).

So here's the example I sent to explain the idea and get feedback. (Bartholemeus is my canonical example character for this campaign; he's a useless klutz, but I love him.)
----------------------------------------
Bartholmeus The Clockmaker has three Disadvantages: a Dependent NPC (his wife, a Normal skilled person appearing on an 8-), worth 10 points, a Psychological Limitation (terrified of weapons, Common, Strong) worth 20 points, and a Hunted (the Clockmaker's Guild, NCI, More Powerful, Harshly Punish, 11-) worth 20 (the +5 for a Hunted appearing on 11- is not worth any points under this system). Rather than receiving 50 Character Points (which he already got at character creation), Bartholmeus receives 10 Hero Point slots (one for each 5 points of Disadvantages).


Bartholmeus returns home and finds his door open, his workshop torched, and his wife missing. Since his DNPC (a 10 point Disadvantage) has entered the story, the GM gives Bartholmeus 2 Hero Points (one per 5 points of Disadvantage, the same as the numbr of slots the Disadvantage provided).


Bartholmeus rounds up his friends and goes in search of his wife. While investigating, he pursues a hooded figure through a dark alley; the figure runs through a door and shuts it behind him. Bartholmeus tries to open the door, but his unknown target has wedged it. The GM calls for a STR check. Bartholmeus is not the sturdiest of people; his STR of 12 is incapable of moving the door. Undaunted, Bartholmeus spends a Hero Point to add 5 Active effect to his STR, giving him an effective 17, which is barely enough to move the door. Bartholmeus has one Hero Point left and steps inside.


In the room, Bartholmeus finds the hooded man and an accomplice holding the unconscious body of his wife. Just as Bartholmeus is about to cast a spell, they turn to him and draw their axes. This activates Bartholmeus' Psychological Limitation (a 20 point Disadvantage providing 20/5 = 4 Hero Points). He falls to the ground in terror, the hooded figures club him unconscious, and the GM awards him 4 more Hero Points, for a total of 5. While Bartholemeus is unconscious, his player muses over the consequences of this particular Disadvantage in a swords and sorcerery campaign.


When Bartholmeus comes to he's in a metal cage inside the city's clock tower. Although he believes this to be the work of his enemies in the Guild, it isn't yet certain enough to award more Hero Points. Regardless, Bartholmeus needs to escape and rescue his wife. He searches the cage and his person, turning up just a few small tools he always has on him. Unfortunately, they are too fine to dismantle the cage.


Bartholmeus looks at the lock on the cage. He isn't a locksmith, but he isn't far from one either. He spends his remaining 5 Hero Points to get the Locksmith skill (3 points) and one +1 level in it (2 points) for the duration of the scene, allowing him to escape the cage. If his luck holds, he may be able to pick any locks between him and his wife.


Bartholmeus could have saved the 2 points for the Lockpicking Adder and used them as a +1 on the roll if needed. He would only have the benefit for that one roll; if he didn't need them, though, he would still have the points left for another use. He had to choose before making the roll. He decided that he might need to use Lockpicking again this scene and chose to purchase the adder.


Note that if Bartholemus had woken up in the cage confronted by an armed man, he could not have received the Hero Points for his Psychological Limitation again, since it is the same scene. If the GM ruled that it was a different scene (probably at the "Fade to black" when Bartholemeus was knocked out), the Psychological Limitation could have awarded points again.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I spent some time playing around with the "bennies for disads" concept yesterday and ran into some interesting observations.
[...]
* Certain disads just don't work with the concept
My suggestion is to distinguish between the limitations that complicate life for the character and those that are inherent weaknesses. The latter should be handled as now by providing extra character points.

- Unluck (unless Unluck compensates in proportion to rolled Unluck effect and after the Unlucky situation ends)
If characters normally start a game session with e.g. 3 bennies, then Unluck would simply be getting less or none. This could be worth character points; similarly starting every session with extra bennies (Luck) could cost character points.

- Age
This can be considered a real weakness and thus worth points. However, I think Age should be thrown out entirely. It is there now as a reflection (conscious or not) of mental characteristics being less efficient than physical, so those who want to have high mental characteristics in a 'normal' campaign should be compensated. If the characteristicscost or derived benefits are adjusted, this compensation should not be necessary.

- Money (the negative cost version)
This seems to me to be a perfect example of the complication-type disadvantage. Being poor complicates life, but it doesn't make you weaker.

* The number of Hero Points awarded should be proportional to the old disad cost, probably at 1 per 5 points of disad
Many of the old disadvantages have varying costs based on occurence. This would be unnecessary with a hero-point system: You get points more often if a disad occurs more often.

* In general, the Hero Points should be available when dealing with the disad
Agreed. Some disads like Hunted could even have a continuing effect: Instead of getting a bennie when your enemy shows up, you get to roll an extra die for combat and skill rolls in that scene and decide which three to keep. So when Dr. Power shows up at Hometown Heroes' headquarters to battle his arch-enemy Formidable Man, Formidable Man will be the most effective in that combat - which reflects how it works in comics. This can be rationalized as superior knowledge of the tactics of your enemy.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

* Certain disads just don't work with the concept:
- Unluck (unless Unluck compensates in proportion to rolled Unluck effect and after the Unlucky situation ends)
- Age
- Money (the negative cost version)
* The always-affecting disads (Age and Money) still seem worth Character Points to me, but maybe not
* The number of Hero Points awarded should be proportional to the old disad cost, probably at 1 per 5 points of disad

Many Disad costs are worth more due to frequency. Off the top, Hunted, DNPC, Vulnerability, Susceptibility Psych Lim, Phys Lim and Accidental Change all increase in points if they're more common. So these disad's will get more Hero points each time they arise, and they will arise more frequently. Seems like a double dip to me.


My suggestion is to distinguish between the limitations that complicate life for the character and those that are inherent weaknesses. The latter should be handled as now by providing extra character points.

I don't think, off the top, that splitting disadvantages into two subsets will be productive. Now we get characters trying to squeeze in their maximum extra character points from one subset and their maximum Hero Point exposure from a second subset, exacerbating the previous "squeeze in enough disad's" concern raised by some posters as a problem in the current system.


Agreed. Some disads like Hunted could even have a continuing effect: Instead of getting a bennie when your enemy shows up, you get to roll an extra die for combat and skill rolls in that scene and decide which three to keep. So when Dr. Power shows up at Hometown Heroes' headquarters to battle his arch-enemy Formidable Man, Formidable Man will be the most effective in that combat - which reflects how it works in comics. This can be rationalized as superior knowledge of the tactics of your enemy.

A few issues here.

One, your concept restricts Hunted's to a subset, those the character is well aware of and focuses on. The FBI could very well be Hunting Dr. Patriot without his knowledge, so how would that give him superior knowledge of their tactics?

Two, this works a lot better for combat hunteds than, say, Watched's or Hunteds who otherwise operate out of combat. How does this benefit help the character or player when the FBI is trying to ferret out his secret ID, not gun him down in the streets?

Third, if the target has, and benefits from, superior knowledge of the Hunter, isn't the case for the hunter having superior knowledge of the target much stronger and more universal? You could be hunted without your knowledge, but hunting without knowledge of who the target is doesn't seem nearly as likely.

Finally, it seems like villains would be well advised to take Hunted: PC Superteam. Now they all get a combat benefit. By the same token, the PC's should do their best to upset the villains enough that they start Hunting them - now the villains are so much less effective.

[xowl]

If characters normally start a game session with e.g. 3 bennies, then Unluck would simply be getting less or none. This could be worth character points; similarly starting every session with extra bennies (Luck) could cost character points.
This is how it works in Savage Worlds. It seems moderately effective there, but not as big an impact as, say, a DNPC is. I guess I mean it isn't a distinctive characteristic of the character. No one says "That Jed, he's unlucky."

I don't know how I feel about the idea of starting bennies per game session. The games I play that use that kind of system all have the problem of scene design having to be built around costing a certain number of bennies to succeed. The goal of a villain becomes to make the PCs spend their bennies (a game mechanic) instead of to accomplish a character objective. They don't feel "extra" then, and any received through play don't get to feel extra.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you expect everyone to have them, they don't actually make you more effective.

[Paragon]

I'd like to suggest to anyone considering a Complication style substitute for some Disadvantages that it really isn't going to serve well unless something deals with the issue of intensity; Frequency is self-regulated in a Complication system, but the binary "is worth it-isn't worth it" nature of M&M's version is not one of the system's virtues.

[ajackson]

I'd like to suggest to anyone considering a Complication style substitute for some Disadvantages that it really isn't going to serve well unless something deals with the issue of intensity.
Agreed, though the three-level scale given for current Physical Limitations is probably a fair place to start (not sure exactly how to deal with vulnerabilities; susceptibilities probably give hero points based on damage and frequency, ignoring how common the substance is).

[Klaus Mogensen]

Agreed, though the three-level scale given for current Physical Limitations is probably a fair place to start (not sure exactly how to deal with vulnerabilities; susceptibilities probably give hero points based on damage and frequency, ignoring how common the substance is).
Again, I suggest treating disability-style disadvantages the same as now, and only use the hero-point system for complications (and possibly Perks: Pay a hero point to use).

Talents and Disabilities: Pay/get character points at chargen

Perks and Complications: Pay/get hero points when they come into play.

This resolves the complexity that a single background item can be both a Perk and a Disadvantage. E.g., belonging to an organization can provide help and privileges, but can also include responsibilities and demands for help. Or a heroine's reporter boyfriend can be both a contact and a dependent. Or she can use her secret identity to infiltrate an enemy organization.

Addendum: Perhaps it should be possible to have a hero point debt (negative score); either temporarily because you spend hero points you don't have, or permanently as Unluck. When your score is negative, you have to roll an equal number of Unluck dice in certain situations. If the unluck kicks in, you get a hero point (pay off your debt). Sort of like the Bad Stuff in Amber Diceless, just with mechanical support.

- Klaus

[MPT]

I prefer the option to simply reduce the Disadvantage points required (300+50). If, however, Disadvantages will no longer give points to the character how would this affect Summon? Currently a summoned creature that is created by the player must take Disadvantages to make up the difference in cost from the character's Base Points. If Disadvantages no longer give points then there is no reason for the creature to have them. (I think that this 'Why take disadvantages?' question has come up in other 5th Ed threads).

Regarding NCM, having it as a campaign definer rather than a Disadvantage that can be selected by the character is the way I have always played it. If Disadvantages no longer give points then it could never come into play anyhow and so could not give Hero Points to the character.

[Chris Goodwin]

Addendum: Perhaps it should be possible to have a hero point debt (negative score); either temporarily because you spend hero points you don't have, or permanently as Unluck. When your score is negative, you have to roll an equal number of Unluck dice in certain situations. If the unluck kicks in, you get a hero point (pay off your debt). Sort of like the Bad Stuff in Amber Diceless, just with mechanical support.


Nah. Negative Hero Points become Villain Points. They're just like Hero Points, only the GM gets to spend them against you.

[Paragon]

Agreed, though the three-level scale given for current Physical Limitations is probably a fair place to start (not sure exactly how to deal with vulnerabilities; susceptibilities probably give hero points based on damage and frequency, ignoring how common the substance is).

Well, honestly, Vulnerabilities and the like strike me as the least appropriate sort of Disads to use as Complications anyway; they're about as close to a Limitation as a Disadvantage gets.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Nah. Negative Hero Points become Villain Points. They're just like Hero Points, only the GM gets to spend them against you.
So good karma engenders bad karma? I like it! :)

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Another Disad-related suggestion for 6th:

For the sake of clarity and consistency, the Disadvantages section should include at the very least a mention of the Poor/Destitute Disad. It shouldn't just be mentioned under the Money Perk as a Disadvantage, and then not included among the Disadvantages.

Also there has been much talk about renaming things in HERO (taking "Energy" out of Energy Blast, etc.). There might be equal reasons to do this with the Disadvantage caterories Physical Limitation, Psychological Limitation, and possibly Social Limitation. A psychological problem, such as poor memory or Turret's Syndrome, could be a Physical Limitation, under the current rules mechanics.

I'm not sure what new term(s) would be best. "Volitional Limitation" comes to mind, but it's not that great.

As I recently saw in another thread, there is some confusion about these three categories. I realized that PhysLim, PsychLim, and SocLim, are really just catch-all "other" categories for Disads that can't be build using some other category; similar to how Transform is often used to build powers that we can't think of any other way to build. When you come right down to it, all Disadvantages are Physical, Psychological, or Social, and the book even points this out to an extent:

Age - physical
Dependence - physical (though it could be psychological, depending on the effect)
DNPC - social
Distinctive Features - physical, and in some cases social
Enraged/Berserk - psychological, usually (could be physical in the case of a robot character that malfunctions in some circumstance)
Hunted - social
Reputation -social
Rivalry - social
Susceptibility - physical (or psychological, depending on what it's to and the damage done)
Unluck - any, but could easily be limited to one of the three, depending on the type of unlucky things that happen.
Vulnerability - physical (or psychological if it's to mental powers or PRE attacks)

IMO, it might be a good idea to first look to one of the above categories to build a character's Disadvantage before resorting to one of the three "catch-all" categories.

For example, if you want a character to be clumsy, instead of buying Physical Limitation: Clumsy, instead buy it as Unluck - he does something clumsy whenever the Unluck dice roll 1's.

Instead of buying Psychological Limitation: Fear of X, buy it as a modified Enraged (discussed earlier on this thread). Call it Fear of X, 11- to go, 14- to recover (or whatever), then, similarly to Enraged, when the character is confronted with X, he rolls to see if he can "keep it together", if not, he behaves irrationally/disadvantageously, until he recovers. He may run away, start screaming and panicing, fall to the ground an curl up in a fetal position, or just stand paralyzed with fear. A moderate, semi-rational reaction would be built similarly to Enraged, and a more extreme reaction would have the +10 points like you'd get for Berserk.

Obviously, not all limitations can be built this way, so there will still be a need for the catch-alls.

[Omnigames]

[Not sure if this is the correct forum for this but here goes...]

For some reason, I'm really obsessed with the d20/D&D concept of Alignment (good-evil / lawful-chaotic). Somehow, especially for Fantasy settings, Alignment is just a "given" for me.

I've inquired before and have been told that Alignment is basically a Psychological Limitation: a lawful-good character, for example, would have a strong abhorrence toward killling whereas a chaotic-evil character would relish the activity.

At the very least, Alignment and other examples of Psychological Limitations should be given their own sidebars and hopefully might even become "Skills" or "Talents". I think this would make the transition from d20 or GURPS to HERO much more fluid without too much conversion headache. Perhaps some form of Reputation...?

:smoke: :idjit: :nonp: :thumbup:

[ideasmith]

[Not sure if this is the correct forum for this but here goes...]

For some reason, I'm really obsessed with the d20/D&D concept of Alignment (good-evil / lawful-chaotic). Somehow, especially for Fantasy settings, Alignment is just a "given" for me.

I've inquired before and have been told that Alignment is basically a Psychological Limitation: a lawful-good character, for example, would have a strong abhorrence toward killling whereas a chaotic-evil character would relish the activity.

At the very least, Alignment and other examples of Psychological Limitations should be given their own sidebars and hopefully might even become "Skills" or "Talents". I think this would make the transition from d20 or GURPS to HERO much more fluid without too much conversion headache. Perhaps some form of Reputation...?

:smoke: :idjit: :nonp: :thumbup:

Copyright might be a consideration here. Even if it turns out not to be, including something so specific to a competing game system seems inappropriate.

Converting elements specific to other RPG's should be reserved for conversion documents, such as this one (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/alignmentConsiderationNotes.aspx).

[Kdansky]

Also: How in the world do you imagine Alignment being a Skill/Talent/Power? All these things let you do something, whereas Alignment does not. What can a Chaotic Good PC do which a Lawful Evil one cannot? Nothing. Even a Lawful Good PC is totally able to kill an innocent. That either constitutes very good or very bad roleplaying, depending on circumstances.

Alignment is a very rough schema for the very broad Psychological Limitation. That's like having a Fireball Power next to Energy Blast.

[ideasmith]

What can a Chaotic Good PC do which a Lawful Evil one cannot?

According to the 2003 edition rulebooks:

Gain levels as barbarian.
Use Barbarian rage.
Gain levels as bard.
Cast good-aligned spells (such as Protection from Evil).
Cast chaos-aligned spells (such as Protection from Law).
Use good-aligned magic items.
Use chaos-aligned magic items.

[James Gillen]

It depends precisely on how much the GM needs "alignment" to be a story element in his campaign. For instance, in most games where Paladins and Demons exist, this assumes the existence of both Holy and Unholy forces that have noticeable special effects (as in The Ultimate Energy Projector). Likewise in the Moorcock universe, the battle is between Law and Chaos. In most games, even some with weird powers, those distinctions aren't important.

jg

[Kdansky]

So you suggest we build the Power Barbarian Rage with "Can Only Be Used By Alignment SuchandSuch (-?)". Nope, that does not work, because that is either no limitation (if you are of that alignment then it does not limit you in any way), or it is a limitation so limiting you will never be able to use that power. Technically, that power should cost 0 points. HERO does not tell you what you are allowed to buy. We don't *want* classes in this game.

If you want rules on how you build characters, go to the page that explains on Campaign and Setting and make something up, all the tools are there. It has nothing to do with the rules itself.

[ideasmith]

So you suggest we build the Power Barbarian Rage with "Can Only Be Used By Alignment SuchandSuch (-?)". Nope, that does not work, because that is either no limitation (if you are of that alignment then it does not limit you in any way), or it is a limitation so limiting you will never be able to use that power. Technically, that power should cost 0 points. HERO does not tell you what you are allowed to buy. We don't *want* classes in this game.

If you want rules on how you build characters, go to the page that explains on Campaign and Setting and make something up, all the tools are there. It has nothing to do with the rules itself.

No, I was simply answering your question. My opinion of alignment in HERO was in my earlier post.

[Kdansky]

To get back to a more friendly tone (yeah, I wasn't so nice): The Fantasy supplement actually has a very extensive chapter on that kind of stuff. True, it is centered on Magic, but that could easily be replaced by Alignment.
These are things which are to be eyeballed anyway, like all limitations. If a player tells me "I am timid and take 1.5x PRE attack damage", but he has 35 EGO (due to being a mentalist) to defend against said PRE attacks, that is both totally legal, and not really a real disadvantage. Because honestly, all other PCs with less than 20 EGO fare worse against 99% of the PRE attacks that they will encounter. So yeah, alignment:

A psychological Limitation mostly. Possibly a Susceptibility ("Every time I do Killing damage / dishonour my code I get -x to all rolls for a certain time, or I take xd6 stun damage"). Morale Code is quite the classic psychlim, and it's exactly what alignment is 99% about.
And as a GM, if you tell a player "If you want to have Protection from Evil, you have to be good yourself", that's perfectly fine.

[Klaus Mogensen]

So you suggest we build the Power Barbarian Rage with "Can Only Be Used By Alignment SuchandSuch (-?)". Nope, that does not work, because that is either no limitation (if you are of that alignment then it does not limit you in any way), or it is a limitation so limiting you will never be able to use that power. Technically, that power should cost 0 points. HERO does not tell you what you are allowed to buy.
Hero is a toolkit. There might well be campaigns where the GM tells what you are allowed to buy. I can well imagine fantasy campaigns where certain Powers and Talents only are available to good or evil or chaotic or lawful characters. Alignment could be a required 0-point trait in such campaigns. However, I don't see any need to include this option in the general rulebook, except in a section about how Hero can be tweaked to fit certain campaign styles.

Another such tweak, which I think should be mentioned as an option for fantasy campaigns (perhaps in a new Fantasy Hero genre book) is to let magic spells be free, the same way that weapons and armor are free (cost no character points):

Magic spells are a part of the world. They exist as a part of the laws of nature, and people with the right talent can tap into them. In game terms, anybody with a Magic Talent and Magic Skill can cast spells without paying points for spells, just as anybody with Weapon Familiarity and Combat Skill can use a sword without paying points for the sword.

What spells are available, and what limitations they have, is determined by the GM (in detail or as guidelines). Since characters don't pay points for spells, required limitations like Gestures and Incantations are merely genre-enforcing. Spellcasters pay END to cast spells and must succeed in a Magic Roll with a difficulty based on the active points in the spell. Perhaps there are Spell Class Familiarities similar to Weapon Familiarities, and some Spell Classes (e.g. Chaos and Law) could be mutually exclusive.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Since the first big determining factor in Alignment is Sense i make Alignment a 5 point distincitive feature, true neutral has no such determinant. Keep in mind such a determinant would be common, combat determination for buying a sense ( In addition I would make it out to have 6 necessary senses, Good-Neutral-Evil and Law-Neutral-Chaos, Detecting good would only allow Good vs. eveything else same with Detect Law it is either Neutral or Chaotic).

Some things with special senses would not deal well with opposition any may not alow use Angels would not teach to those not good for instance. Paladins may not teach to others who are not of their faith.


Oh yeah the alignment thing should not be copyrightable, Law and Chaos as alignments are Moorcocks concepts long before they were stolen by AD&D. Good and Evil are of course older than dirt, RPG's, the Bible and Gary Gygaxes dust.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Oh yeah the alignment thing should not be copyrightable, Law and Chaos as alignments are Moorcocks concepts long before they were stolen by AD&D. Good and Evil are of course older than dirt, RPG's, the Bible and Gary Gygaxes dust.
True enough, but WotC/Hasbro may have a case in claiming copyright to the alignment matrix of good-neutral-evil, lawful-neutral-chaotic.
Not a good case, perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be a requirement for big companies' lawsuits.

- Klaus

[casualplayer]

Watch this, guys.

Distinctive Features: Chaotic (easily concealable, major reaction)
Distinctive Features: Evil (easily concealable, major reaction)

Then you can Analyze/Detect/Sense it, you can set NNDs/AVLDs to trigger off of it, you can even set Triggers to trigger off of it. Compliment with appropriate Psych. Lims (Never Passes Up Chance to Kick Puppies, etc.) and you have an alignment system. Mandate it during character construction and away you go!

[Vulcan]

Darn good idea, CasualPlayer. Make it so.

[Vulcan]

I agree with the idea of lessening the number of Disad points required. Let's face it. No one starts a new chararcter with anything less than the maximum number of Disads, so it might as well be required.

Now, I favor a split approach to rewarding characters for taking disads.

Certain disads can apply at any time, or at least often enough that involving them doesn't disrupt the flow of the game. Many Psyhcological, Physical, and Social Disads (and yes, I favor the rename on this), Enraged, Vulnerability/Susceptability, and Unluck (the list is hardly a complete one) can all occur 'on the fly'. These should be good for CP's for character creation.

Plot Hooks, on the other hand (DNPC, Hunted, Dependance, Dark Secrets, etc) should be good for the aformentioned 'Hero Points' in the session where the GM plans to use them, rather than CP's.

A bit of balancing will be required (how many points of Disads vs. how many points in Plot Hooks will be allowed) to make this fly, however.

[casualplayer]

Darn good idea, CasualPlayer. Make it so.

Aw shucks. :o

I do all sorts of wacky stuff with Disadvantages. I have characters with Susceptability to their own powers (rather than Side Effects,) Berserk/Enrageds based off of CHAR rolls rather than flat 14-, 11- or 8- and I let players use Skill Levels to modify those rolls if appropriate, etc, etc. I just wish that Disadvantages were constructed like Powers are: base cost modified by Advantages and Limitations rather than stacking Adders.

One of the main allures of HERO for me was the lack of an Alignment System. I'm not inclined to recreate it but that certainly doesn't mean it can't be done.

[AnotherSkip]

watch This, Guys.

Distinctive Features: Chaotic (easily Concealable, Major Reaction)
Distinctive Features: Evil (easily Concealable, Major Reaction)

Then You Can Analyze/detect/sense It, You Can Set Nnds/avlds To Trigger Off Of It, You Can Even Set Triggers To Trigger Off Of It. Compliment With Appropriate Psych. Lims (never Passes Up Chance To Kick Puppies, Etc.) And You Have An Alignment System. Mandate It During Character Construction And Away You Go!

Thief!!!!

[Paragon]

I agree with the idea of lessening the number of Disad points required. Let's face it. No one starts a new chararcter with anything less than the maximum number of Disads, so it might as well be required.



I've seen people go under a few points (5-10) but you're pretty close to correct. I don't see this as a big problem in heroic scale games (frankly, most well realized fictional heroes can come up with 50-75 points without working up a sweat) but the number needed in superheroic is excessive, and this is coming from the person who basically _invented_ the idea of Disads as Champions implimented them. When you see patterns of people consistently taking multiple DNPCs, Hunteds or both, you just know they're having to fish too much.



Certain disads can apply at any time, or at least often enough that involving them doesn't disrupt the flow of the game. Many Psyhcological, Physical, and Social Disads (and yes, I favor the rename on this), Enraged, Vulnerability/Susceptability, and Unluck (the list is hardly a complete one) can all occur 'on the fly'. These should be good for CP's for character creation.

Plot Hooks, on the other hand (DNPC, Hunted, Dependance, Dark Secrets, etc) should be good for the aformentioned 'Hero Points' in the session where the GM plans to use them, rather than CP's.

A bit of balancing will be required (how many points of Disads vs. how many points in Plot Hooks will be allowed) to make this fly, however.

That's more or less the take that M&M does on the two types (though they undervalue point yield disads in my opinion (you can argue Hero overvalues them, but M&M swung too far the other way). The big problem is that its hard with a hero-point yield style disad to represent severity; frequency is self-managed, but unless you're willing to give out multiple hero points at a pop for that really ugly Hunted, there's no easy way to do matters of degree there.

[casualplayer]

Since the first big determining factor in Alignment is Sense i make Alignment a 5 point distincitive feature, true neutral has no such determinant. Keep in mind such a determinant would be common, combat determination for buying a sense ( In addition I would make it out to have 6 necessary senses, Good-Neutral-Evil and Law-Neutral-Chaos, Detecting good would only allow Good vs. eveything else same with Detect Law it is either Neutral or Chaotic).

Some things with special senses would not deal well with opposition any may not alow use Angels would not teach to those not good for instance. Paladins may not teach to others who are not of their faith.


Oh yeah the alignment thing should not be copyrightable, Law and Chaos as alignments are Moorcocks concepts long before they were stolen by AD&D. Good and Evil are of course older than dirt, RPG's, the Bible and Gary Gygaxes dust.

Hacks copy, artists steal!

[GamePhil]

True enough, but WotC/Hasbro may have a case in claiming copyright to the alignment matrix of good-neutral-evil, lawful-neutral-chaotic.
Not a good case, perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be a requirement for big companies' lawsuits.

- Klaus

Sorry, they have a rock-solid case that the presentation of alignments in D&D, and possibly the use of the word of "alignment" in this context, is their intellectual property. They can't copyright "good" or "evil" or "law" or "chaos", but the specifics as they are presented in their rules? All theirs.

Someone wants to come up with a morality-as-game-rules system that wasn't the same but used virtually all the same terms should be pretty safe, but at that point the "big company" problem does rear its ugly head, I expect.

However, that wouldn't stop Hero from using some form of Alignment system as sample Psych Lims (or Physical Limitations, etc. for supernaturally evil/good/lawful/whatever creatures) if they didn't call it that or copy the wording from a D&D book, even if it amounted to the same thing. Not that I'm advocating this.

[Dr.Device]

Sorry, they have a rock-solid case that the presentation of alignments in D&D, and possibly the use of the word of "alignment" in this context, is their intellectual property. They can't copyright "good" or "evil" or "law" or "chaos", but the specifics as they are presented in their rules? All theirs.

I've replied to this in the Non-gaming Discussion area (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1617001), so as not to clutter up this forum.

[Nolgroth]

Q: Should we change the term “Disadvantages”?

Nolgroth's Thoughts: Doesn't matter. I have had people new to the system ask me why Power Limitations aren't Disadvantages and vice versa, but once they get past the "just because" answer it becomes transparent.


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

Nolgroth's Thoughts: Doesn't matter to me.


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

Nolgroth’s Thoughts: Yes. I like the Hero Points method, but I have a specific concept for how to use Hero Points that does not exactly correspond to the HAP in Pulp HERO. For the most part, I have decided that every single game I run from now on does away with Disadvantages as written.


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

Nolgroth's Thoughts: Yes. My first thought was no, but then I got to thinking that the only time I ever actually used these was to "fill" my Disadvantage quota. Euthanize them. ;)


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

Nolgroth’s Thoughts: Yes. More options and possibly a few more examples.


Q: Should the rules for Susceptibility be expanded?

Nolgroth’s Thoughts: No preference.


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

Nolgroth's Thoughts: Does anybody actually take Dependence? If rewritten to use Hero Points, sure.


Other Thoughts

Nolgroth's Thoughts: To me, there has always been a strange disconcordance between hard "stat" Disadvantages and psychological or social (including Hunted and DNPC) disadvantages. In the former case, the disadvantage should be permanent barring some significant character re-write or campaign inspired change. The latter category can be changed almost at whim. DNPC gets shot by bad guy, who becomes the focus of a Psych Lim, is later killed and Psych Lim is no longer appropriate. Trying to find places to shift points around so that you still have the same number of Disadvantage points always seems false to me. If you kill/resolve your Hunted after a long story arc, losing the Hunted should be more organic. A re-write of the existing Disadvantages rules would go a long way into taking the focus away from the points and moving it more towards the story.

[Talon]

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

No strong objections to these.

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

While I like the idea of Hero Points, I do not want to see them emphasized to the point where Hero combat becomes more about running people out of Hero Points than anything else.

That aside, I think the current situation of strongly encouraging people to take Disadvantages works well. GMs are free to reduce the Disad requirement for their game if they like.

One of the things I hate about GURPs is that the Disadvantages all feel like traps -- the emphasis on making sure the drawbacks are immediate and severe takes a lot of fun out of the character design process. I don't feel that Hero has the same issue.

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 this concept.

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

I think they should be removed.

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

I like the DH#25 rules -- in particular, I like the way frequency is described as "per game session" and impairment is expressed pretty clearly as percentages. I think this approach could be put to use in other Disads.

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.

These seem like a reasonable addition.

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

If they can be combined then they should be to make the game simpler.

===============

Frequency / Appearance: I mention it a couple times below, but all Disads which have frequency based on rolls should instead have descriptions "almost every session", "once every five sessions", etc.

Classifying Disads: I think it may prove harder to classify disads into disabilities and complications -- for example, using Physical Limitation for a Psych Lim where the character gets no EGO Roll.

Berserk: I like Sean's idea at the bottom of post #133 (mentioned again in post #163) to expand Berserk to include other types of reactions (fascination, panic, etc.).

DNPC: the "Useful noncombat position or skills" line should say something like "occasionally useful" to make it clear that a DNPC is not a Follower.

The "Appearance" section should have descriptors for frequency like those used in the Digital Hero #25 article -- "DNPC causes problems for the character every other session", etc.

The other thing that DNPC doesn't take into account is the NPC's attitude toward the character (this is one reason that it's too easy to pull the DNPC/Follower trick).
At the least there should be a -5 or -10 for DNPCs who have a favorable or very favorable attitude toward the character.

Hunted: Rather than die rolls, the frequency should be listed based on how often they have an effect on the game.

The "Appearance" section should have descriptors for frequency like those used in the Digital Hero #25 article -- "Hunted causes problems for the character every other session", etc. Being Hunted by the police can cause problems all the time because it constrains the character's actions, even if they aren't on an active manhunt all the time.

"Limited to a geographic area" needs to be re-phrased in a more campaign-specific way -- if the area is where the campaign is set then it doesn't matter much.

(I think the Nemesis/Archenemy idea is expressed by multiple Disads -- Hunted / Psych Lim / Rivalry.)

Reputation: There should be a version of this that reduces PRE attacks and Interaction skills -- not all Reputations do this, but there should be a mechanic for those that do.

Vulnerability: I like the idea of adding non-damage effects (1/2 DCV vs. effect, etc.)

I really like the idea in post #189 of having Vulnerabilities be extra DC rather than multipliers; that seems a lot more balanced. Starting at +2 DC and having +5 points per +2 DC seems reasonable.

[Vulcan]

Frequency / Appearance: I mention it a couple times below, but all Disads which have frequency based on rolls should instead have descriptions "almost every session", "once every five sessions", etc.

Good idea. It removes some of the randomness of the rolls, and makes it easier for the GM to plan games.


Classifying Disads: I think it may prove harder to classify disads into disabilities and complications -- for example, using Physical Limitation for a Psych Lim where the character gets no EGO Roll.

Physical Limitations are for things a character CANNOT do, Psychologial Limitations are for things he DOESN'T WANT TO do. There's a reason there are EGO rolls on Psych Limits, it's because if the situation is deparate enough you can make yourself do something you don't want to.


Berserk: I like Sean's idea at the bottom of post #133 (mentioned again in post #163) to expand Berserk to include other types of reactions (fascination, panic, etc.).

DNPC: the "Useful noncombat position or skills" line should say something like "occasionally useful" to make it clear that a DNPC is not a Follower.

The "Appearance" section should have descriptors for frequency like those used in the Digital Hero #25 article -- "DNPC causes problems for the character every other session", etc.

The other thing that DNPC doesn't take into account is the NPC's attitude toward the character (this is one reason that it's too easy to pull the DNPC/Follower trick).
At the least there should be a -5 or -10 for DNPCs who have a favorable or very favorable attitude toward the character.

Given that most DNPC's tend to be family/loved ones, that would devalue the cost of DNPC's too much (in my opinion). Instead, how about making 'unfriendly' and 'hostile' DNPC's worth more points?

[AnotherSkip]

Physical Limitations are for things a character CANNOT do, Psychologial Limitations are for things he DOESN'T WANT TO do. There's a reason there are EGO rolls on Psych Limits, it's because if the situation is deparate enough you can make yourself do something you don't want to.


that probably makes for an argument that they need to be renamed to make the difference obvious.

[tesuji]

Just a few quick notes on disads....

I would find it a favorable change to HERo IF...

1. Disadvantages paid a bonus of some sort, likely in XP, when they came into play during a session AND made the scene more difficult for the PC in question. This could be seen as " a more difficult encounter pays more xp" kind of rationale. Whenther this reward is in the form of action points or luck dice (IMO luck dice is a good option for HERO's on take on action points) or XP or some of all is up for grabs.

2. If pay-when-you-play (item 1) were imp,emented then a lot of the restrictions could go away or be lessened.

3. I would dearly love to see the frequency issues be changed from "14-" etc to "out of 10 sessions, how many session on average will this appear and cause problems" kind of counting. IMX most people dont actually want their 14- hunted appearing in 90% of the scenarios, but buy 14- as a "they are looking for me". They dont think of 14- as "how often its a problem" and most Gms dont use it that way, just ignore the 14- and use it whenever it occurs. But when i express it as "out of every 10 session..." the point gets clear real quick between player and GM and it results in more reasonable frequencies being chosen.

[Kdansky]

Came up on the 5th forum:

Dependency is mispriced. It's incredibly brutal as a disad (ever seen an alcoholic? or even heroin addict?) and usually you only get very few points for it.

[steamteck]

Came up on the 5th forum:

Dependency is mispriced. It's incredibly brutal as a disad (ever seen an alcoholic? or even heroin addict?) and usually you only get very few points for it.


Very true the minuses for the time chart are pretty high and really make most things like that less than they should be.

[Klaus Mogensen]

A big problem with both Susceptibility and Dependency is that +1d6 damage is worth the same as a step on the time table. This means that taking 3d6 damage every 5 minutes is worth as much as taking 1d6 every turn, even though that adds up to 30d6 every 5 minutes!

I suggest that the damage remain a constant 1d6 or 2d6, perhaps with the option of taking the damage as a type of Drain instead. The value should also generally be higher; as it is, you can't get any points for realistic and debilitating dependencies like severe diabetes, alcoholism or hard drug additicion.

- Klaus

[steamteck]

that probably makes for an argument that they need to be renamed to make the difference obvious.


Insert snobby elitist comment here:D.

[Chris Goodwin]

Idea for Disadvantages: Instead of a Frequency and a "How Limiting" modifier, there's only a "How Limiting" Modifier. To reduce the Frequency, buy it with Limitations that work exactly as Powers. So, Hunted by VIPER: More Pow, 14-, might be bought as Hunted by Viper (-20 Base Points), 14- Act. (-1/2), -13 Real Points.

There'd have to be only certain Limitations allowed.

No, I don't want to address whether they can have Advantages. *shudder*

This would allow you to build Foci that provide built-in Disadvantages, a la curses. So you could have a 1 1/2d6 HKA, OIF Sword, that provides you with 3d6 Unluck, OIF Sword.

[Watchdog]

I'm late to this discussion, so my choices are to read through 17 pages of material, or cross my fingers and hope no one else has suggested this. Commencing finger crossing, as my other idea was actually listed in the previous post. (I've created characters with malfuctioning battlesuits with OIF Unluck.)

My idea for disadvantages is to twist a perk: instead of having favors, the PC owes favors. The point bonus would depend on the number of favors owed and/or who they are owed to. (The more powerful the person, the more pressure they can put on the PC until the debt is cleared.)

When a favor is repaid, it can automatically be bought off with some of the XP awarded for an adventure, making it one of the rare disads that actually get bought off.

From a GM's perspective, it's a great opportunity for plot hooks. It's not a bad idea for character conceptions that spent a lot of points on favors, either - it dramatizes the wheeler/dealer personality quite well.

[Vulcan]

Nope, you're the first person I've heard suggest it. Although there is a social limitation "Character is a contact for many people' on the 'Master List of Limitations' website...

[Klaus Mogensen]

I have suggested that Perks don't cost points up front, but that you have to pay a 'Hero Point' to activate them. Similarly, if a Perk requires something back from you (a Contact asking for a favor), you get a Hero Point.

I would treat many current Disadvantages the same way: Dependent NPC, Hunted, Secret Identity, Code of Honor, etc. Only Disadvantages that actually make the character weaker should IMO give character points.

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

While I've mentioned the idea of making a favor a "point transfer" (the person owing the favor gets the points that the person the favor is owed to spends on it), I haven't done so since the 6th Edition discussion began.

I'd love to see something similar done with the ability to Summon a specific being -- if your character can be Summoned by someone (saying again, as a specific being) to perform some task, it's worth the same number of real points to you as the person with the ability spends.

In both cases, it might be more appropriate as an optional rule (and the Summon one might be better left for the Fantasy Hero book), but I think this type of thing is worth considering.

[BobGreenwade]

I just recently noticed something with Distinctive Features.

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

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

[James Gillen]

It depends on how much you smell. If your stank is enough to cause Long-Lasting Change Environment that has to be cut with alcohol and tomato juice, then it's not an "uncommon" sense. :D

jg

[BobGreenwade]

Another thought regarding smell... specifically the Physical Limitation: No Sense Of Smell.

Currently this is a basic, 5-point Disadvantage. Having no sense of Smell can have some serious consequences, though: the character can't smell smoke, leaking natural gas, spoiled food, aromatic poisons, or similar potential dangers, but rather has to depend on others to find them for him. This, I think, would qualify the Limitation as being Greatly rather than Slightly Impairing, for (assuming the present structure is retained) a 10-point PhysLim.