Disadvantages vs. Complications

[AdamLeisemann]

Below is a post from the ZeFRS (Zeb's Fantasy Roleplaying System) discussion board which brings up an issue that seems worth discussing. The parts I wish to discuss are the parts in bold (which I have made bold). For clarification, I am not saying I agree to one side at the exclusion of another. However, the issue does seem to merit some discussion.

Disadvantages shall be defined in this thread as flaws that give the character points up front during character creation. Complications will be defined for this thread as flaws that give a bonus (experience points, hero points, whatever) when they make trouble for the character.

The full post is presented so nothing can be said to be taken out of context.


The Rules are here: let’s change ‘em!

My next topic: Weaknesses and Luck.

I’m a fellow who played Champions and then HERO exclusively for several years and once thought the idea of Disadvantages was really, really wonderful. However, I have, in recent years, become a full-throttle convert to the mechanic of Complications instead. The problem with Disads, to me, is that the player usually takes them, hoping that they won’t come up in play. They encourage a kind of tactical CharGen I dislike, as well as other Gamist attitudes (such as the Alcoholic character who makes a point of avoiding all alcohol so he won’t be badgered into “role-playing properly”). With Complications, the player is hoping the opposite, that his issue will come up, because he gets goodies (meta-game resources) when they do (I’ve discovered with some satisfaction than Steve Kenson seems to be paralleling my train of thought between 1st and 2nd ed Mutants & Masterminds).

So, I don’t really like Weaknesses as presented in the rules. Admittedly, they are far better in ZEFRS than in HERO because you would only take one or two (as opposed to the long strings of Disads in the latter game). But still, I don’t like giving extra CP’s for ‘em.

Similarly, although I think the idea of PC’s having an unknown stash of Luck Points has some genre flavor, ultimately I find it a bad idea. My experiences with unknown resources in play is that players either A)get conservative and never use anything or B)figure they’ll never know when they’ll run out and so just use them up as soon as possible. Neither is very satisfying to me. So I’d rather not hide the Luck Points.

Taking these two ideas, I would convert the Weaknesses into a form of Complication and say that they do not generate CP’s at CharGen; rather, whenever they come up and notably make the character’s life harder, the character earns a Luck Point. Now, instead of the anomalously abstinent drunkard, the player has a mechanically supported reason to go out and get stupid drunk and wind up in the Overlord’s bed’s with his twin daughters: Luck Points (which he probably has to use to escape from the angry Overlord. Such is the life of an S&S hero).

Going further, I’m thinking that ZEFRS might be a good place to try out an idea I had a long time ago, which I called “tactical metagaming” or “choosing when to lose”. I couldn’t quite figure this out when I initially played with it, but the whole concept of Complications has clarified it for me and FATE made it even sharper. In ZEFRS, I think it might be called “Calling your Fate” or “Spinning the Wheel (of Fortune)”. In essence, a player who finds himself in need of Luck Points (which maybe should be called Fate Points or Doom Points or Wyrd Points), asks the GM to give him some. In exchange, one or more of his Weaknesses are “activated”. This would be rather like a player asking for a Compel in FATE.

In other words, rather than letting the GM decide when to screw you with a Complication, the player has the agency. He calls for Luck to do something he wants to do, with full knowledge that it will cause his trouble later. To me, anyway, this really takes the sting out of getting hit with a Complication because I asked for it.

In this second revision, I would say that the Luck Pool should remain very small most of the time, in order to encourage Calling your Fate. Maybe the Pool starts at 0 at the beginning of every game. If the player really feels the need to build up a big pool…well, have fun, Elric (who might need some new Weaknesses to represent killing everyone and everything he loves http://s4.images.proboards.com/cheesy.gif ).

Thoughts?

So I have a question: What are your thoughts on Disadvantages and complications?

[Vondy]

Over the years I've come to regard disadvantages as a problem. This is for a number of reasons, but key among them are: people take them to get points more than to define characters; they can create a point of tension between the game-master and player. The game-master either has to manage and negotiate them(with an occassional no, or decide whether to allow the big ones to alter the tone and direction of the campaign, or not use them and let them be free points. A side issue comes in two flavors: the player may use them to create a concept that doesn't fit (more friction); or regard them as a contract to railroad the gamemaster into going somewhere they don't want to go. The latter has more and more been a theme I've seen over the past few years when negotiation is really what matters. I also find them limiting in that some things that could be taken as the more subjective ones could arguably work for or against the character (reputations, appearance, psyschological traints, etc). As a result, I've come to regard them as a clunky implementation of an otherwise good idea. I would rather see complications that did no provide points, but instead served as a trade point for the character in terms of hero points or some other mechanic. If the player wants it to work for them (and it could feasibly do so) they pay a point; if it works against them they get a hero point. This gives an opportunity for give and take, esp. if you negotiate them. If the player feels it hasn't come up in a while he can talk to the GM, and it might lead to a style of play where the GM can offer a situation as opposed to imposing it. It also removes the strict need for frequencies or rolls, offers a currency in terms of how they affect play, and can be used to represent things that are good and bad in potentia. Its a personal preference, but one I find more and more attractive all the time.

[Cargus10]

Seems to me that this is just a cover for players that metagame rather than roleplay. Disads do give points, sure, but they also provide wonderful opportunities for roleplaying, as well as excellent "hooks" for a creative GM.

I guess the issue is that the GM/player relationship ought not be adversarial. The GM isn't competing with the player, nor is the player trying to "win" a scenario. Both ought to be working toward an enjoyable RP experience that you can look back on and go "hey, remember when..."

If you have to force good roleplaying with metagame mechanics, something is wrong, I think.

[AdamLeisemann]

If you have to force good roleplaying with metagame mechanics, something is wrong, I think.

Quoted for truth. And I think in this case the issue is the player.

Though at the the same time; I see merits for both methods.

The Up-front benefits of Disadvantages allow otherwise unplayable characters to be playable, and you are saying "I will let this hinder my character in exchange for these points now."

The long-term Complications are saying "I will allow this to hinder my character from time to time, in exchange for being able to tip the scales in my favor from time to time." (or, alternately, experience points.)

Though admittedly, it doesn't seem so much to me quite like forcing good role-playing to me, so much as encouraging good roleplaying. (An alcoholic has reason to get drunk, for example.) This is, of course, just an opinion of my own.

[Curufea]

I like the us of Complications in the Theatrix system, however - although they are quite different to the mechanic of the same name here. In Theatrix the power level of a starting character must be justified with complications. A simple human has very few complications compared to an elf lord with magic powers. In Theatrix, complications are character backgrounds brimming with plot hooks that can be used by a GM in the game ("you know how you mentioned you had that cousin who was after your titles and lands? Guess who is at the dinner party...")

Unlike the original posters version of complications - the Theatrix ones are a metagame justification for characters to create better backgrounds and justifications for how they got to where they are at the beginning of the game.

[Vondy]

If you have to force good roleplaying with metagame mechanics, something is wrong, I think.

Both are metagame mechanics. They just come into play in slightly different ways. The entire basis of both systems is to encourage role playing by rewarding the character player with character points at design time or hero points at run time. I don't think either with lead to good role-playing unless people are going to do that anyways. The question is how you want the disadvantage / complication to impact and shape the game and the character. And that is a style issue. I prefer a more fluid on the spot style where the impact is intended to create story options and currency is in play as opposed to a previous investment intended to impede the character. If you don't, more power to you.

[steamteck]

Disadvantages have for decades allowed my players and I to make rich characters with deep histories which have an actual effect on game play. I've found no other game structure that even comes close. Now, maybe I have players that really "get it" because they expect these things to come up and actively play to them but to use there are no problems only endless possibilities.
Perhaps some system of reward is good but I always give extra XP anyway for good roleplaying etc ( I use a 1/10 XP to character point model which gives me lots more flexibility) There is no defense except the GM and group pressure from jerky players who want to play the system anyway IMO.
I don't see the offenders taking things such as "complications" that give no immediate reward anyway. The ones that would use this system well are the "good" ones that use disadvantages properly also.

[archermoo]

Over the years I've come to regard disadvantages as a problem. This is for a number of reasons, but key among them are: people take them to get points more than to define characters; they can create a point of tension between the game-master and player. The game-master either has to manage and negotiate them(with an occassional no, or decide whether to allow the big ones to alter the tone and direction of the campaign, or not use them and let them be free points. A side issue comes in two flavors: the player may use them to create a concept that doesn't fit (more friction); or regard them as a contract to railroad the gamemaster into going somewhere they don't want to go. The latter has more and more been a theme I've seen over the past few years when negotiation is really what matters. I also find them limiting in that some things that could be taken as the more subjective ones could arguably work for or against the character (reputations, appearance, psyschological traints, etc). As a result, I've come to regard them as a clunky implementation of an otherwise good idea. I would rather see complications that did no provide points, but instead served as a trade point for the character in terms of hero points or some other mechanic. If the player wants it to work for them (and it could feasibly do so) they pay a point; if it works against them they get a hero point. This gives an opportunity for give and take, esp. if you negotiate them. If the player feels it hasn't come up in a while he can talk to the GM, and it might lead to a style of play where the GM can offer a situation as opposed to imposing it. It also removes the strict need for frequencies or rolls, offers a currency in terms of how they affect play, and can be used to represent things that are good and bad in potentia. Its a personal preference, but one I find more and more attractive all the time.

I hear people say this kind of thing a lot, and I can certainly see how it could be the case. I guess I'm just fortunate to have never really played with anyone who does this kind of thing. Most of the people I've played with have played at least a few characters that had extra disads that didn't even get them any points that they added to the character just because they made sense.

[steamteck]

I hear people say this kind of thing a lot, and I can certainly see how it could be the case. I guess I'm just fortunate to have never really played with anyone who does this kind of thing. Most of the people I've played with have played at least a few characters that had extra disads that didn't even get them any points that they added to the character just because they made sense.


Same here. I guess we've been lucky.

[Roter Baron]

I like the compülications angle better than the disadvantages:

I have a drinking problem and roleplay it and get a point of luck/ fate/ XP/ whatever (Sgt. Mary Bloody: "Oh, I need a drink!"). If I don't want it to happen I simply decide against it and don't get that point (Sgt Mary Bloody:" NO! Way! The enemy is coming - I need a clear head today - DAMN THAT BOOZE!")

And I can decide after character creation what a possible complication could be.

With disads I get it all in advance (character points) and then have to pay "interest" on it (GM: "Don't you think that it would be time for your pc to down that vodka? She is an alcoholic and that's 15 points!" - Player: "Yeah, okay. Sorry guys, the screen-monkey wants me to lower my CVs for tomorrow's big battle ...").

I agree with D-Man: A lot of players just take disads to get more points. And you NEED those points! The points are actually worth more than the disads are a hinderance. A campiagn buld as 100 points plus 100 disads IS a campiagn expecting 200 point-characters and a 100 pointer is considerable less powerful than a 100 + 50 or a 100+100 character, not just one with less options.

[Vondy]

I hear people say this kind of thing a lot, and I can certainly see how it could be the case. I guess I'm just fortunate to have never really played with anyone who does this kind of thing. Most of the people I've played with have played at least a few characters that had extra disads that didn't even get them any points that they added to the character just because they made sense.

Early on I dealt with a lot of womabats who didn't understand the purpose behind the mechanic. Over the years I managed to attract and train players who often did what you describe: taking disadvantages at zero points because they made sense. For me, I like the disadvantage system in concept, but would like to see a different application. A lot of the "soft" disads can work for or against a character [psych lims, reputation, and distinctive features pop into mind], but also work for them occassionally. I also like having hero-points in play and often the things that win hero points are related to the character's disadvantages coming into play. As such, I want a system that lets me leverage that as a part of the hero-point currency. I think both are valid methods. And, really, they aren't very different when the chips hit the table. The disads define the character and how they interact with the environment much the same way. Its just what you get for it that changes. Instead of character points [which I just hand out in one lump sum without disads anyways] they get an expendable chance to leverage a roll or the outcome of a situation in play. Its a stylistic more than a substantive difference in terms of play. Its not a huge thing. If we were to have disads in 6E I'd just replace it with a complication system, anyways. It won't affect how many points characters are built on in my games - just how they got them.

[Trebuchet]

Based on what I've read here (I've never actually seen Complications) it seems to a mixture of both of these approaches might be the best of both worlds.

We use Disads quiite a bit in our campaign; but I'm always open to new ideas to generate plot hooks and scenario ideas.

[Vondy]

Based on what I've read here (I've never actually seen Complications) it seems to a mixture of both of these approaches might be the best of both worlds.

We use Disads quiite a bit in our campaign; but I'm always open to new ideas to generate plot hooks and scenario ideas.

I don't think "complications" have ever been printed anywhere. Its really just a proposal for handling disadvantages a little differently that popped up in the 6th edition discussion. Its not in a concrete form so much as a conceptual one. Its something I decided to write into "Von Hero." When that's done you can look at one take on the idea. Its coming slow, though. Don't hold your breath.

[ghost-angel]

I think what struck me as odd is the statement "Take Disadvantages in the hopes they never come up"

My experience in gaming shows almost always the exact opposite - the player hopes they become involved in the story. Call it falling under the Growth Through Adversity line of story telling if you want.

If it's going to take a name change to bring Disadvantages to a new light for so many - then change the name. But functionally I don't see a difference between the two.

It's like the difference between Gigantic and Huge from the point of view of a mouse: not a lot, if anything noticeable at all.

[Trebuchet]

I think what struck me as odd is the statement "Take Disadvantages in the hopes they never come up"

My experience in gaming shows almost always the exact opposite - the player hopes they become involved in the story. Call it falling under the Growth Through Adversity line of story telling if you want.I agree. In my experience players are thrilled when their character's arch-nemesis or other personal complications show up in game. It makes them feel like the game is focused on them - which, of course, it is.

Calling Disadvantages something else wouldn't bother me at all as long as the plot hooks they provide are still attainable in some form.

[Vondy]

y I don't see a difference between the two.

Cenceptually, they do serve the exact same purpose. Functionally, however, there is a difference. At least, in how I intend to use them, there is a difference. First, it opens up the opportunity for soft disadvantages, which are really characterization points more than disadvantages in a lot of cases, to work for or against the character as is situationally apropos. The key is that they come into play as plot hooks or character elements, not that they always function as a disadvantage. And second, instead of providing character points up front whether the disadvantage comes into play or not, or whether its stated frequency is appropriate or not, they provide hero points that can influence results at run-time when they come into play. Its the same idea, but with a different method attached.

[Monolith]

I have fully embraced the Complication/Drawback system of M&M and find it to be more versatile then the Disadvantage system in Hero. Drawbacks in M&M cover the mechanical aspects of the game while Complications tend to cover the social and interaction aspects of the game. In M&M taking damage from Kryptonite would be a mechanical issue while having a Hunted or a Phobia would be social or interactive problem.

The advantage of Complications is that they change as the player changes without the need of worrying about point balance. If your Hunted dies you do not need to find a way to balance the points, or if you dump your boyfriend/girlfriend you are not concerned about replacing DNPC points. Likewise you can change or remove your Psych Limitations based on story needs rather then point needs. This adds a level of drama because the player gets to decide when his character will change rather then whenever he has the points to buy-down the Disad.

I also like the fact that Complications come up based on story needs rather then some random roll. The rolls for Hunteds and DNPCs were almost always being ignored in my Champions games because I did not want the rules to dictate how I should use the NPCs. This meant that players were basically getting free points because I was not going to have a 14- Hunted show up 85% of the time anyway.

[Vondy]

I have fully embraced the Complication/Drawback system of M&M and find it to be more versatile then the Disadvantage system in Hero. Drawbacks in M&M cover the mechanical aspects of the game while Complications tend to cover the social and interaction aspects of the game. In M&M taking damage from Kryptonite would be a mechanical issue while having a Hunted or a Phobia would be social or interactive problem.

The advantage of Complications is that they change as the player changes without the need of worrying about point balance. If your Hunted dies you do not need to find a way to balance the points, or if you dump your boyfriend/girlfriend you are not concerned about replacing DNPC points. Likewise you can change or remove your Psych Limitations based on story needs rather then point needs. This adds a level of drama because the player gets to decide when his character will change rather then whenever he has the points to buy-down the Disad.

I also like the fact that Complications come up based on story needs rather then some random roll. The rolls for Hunteds and DNPCs were almost always being ignored in my Champions games because I did not want the rules to dictate how I should use the NPCs. This meant that players were basically getting free points because I was not going to have a 14- Hunted show up 85% of the time anyway.

So, in Hero terms that translates as what? Physical Lims, Vulnerabilities, and Susceptabilities are Disadvantages that get character points at design time, while other lims are complications that get some other reward (like hero points) at run time?

[Monolith]

So, in Hero terms that translates as what? Physical Lims, Vulnerabilities, and Susceptabilities are Disadvantages that get character points at design time, while other lims are complications that get some other reward (like hero points) at run time?
In M&M Accidental Change, Dependence, Physical Limitations, Susceptability, and Vulnerability would be Drawbacks. Age and Enrage could go either way depending on how limiting it really is to the character. I would personally handle them both as Complications. DNPC, Distinctive Features, Hunted, Psych Limitations, Reputation, Rivalry, Social Limitation, and Unluck would all be Complications and grant a Hero Point whenever they complicated the character's life.

M&M also has a few other Drawbacks which would generally be considered -1/4 Limitations in Hero. Things like Full Power, Reduced Range, and Noticeable are considered handicaps in the game but not large enough to be worth the value of a Flaw.

[Vondy]

In M&M Accidental Change, Dependence, Physical Limitations, Susceptability, and Vulnerability would be Drawbacks. Age and Enrage could go either way depending on how limiting it really is to the character. I would personally handle them both as Complications. DNPC, Distinctive Features, Hunted, Psych Limitations, Reputation, Rivalry, Social Limitation, and Unluck would all be Complications and grant a Hero Point whenever they complicated the character's life.

M&M also has a few other Drawbacks which would generally be considered -1/4 Limitations in Hero. Things like Full Power, Reduced Range, and Noticeable are considered handicaps in the game but not large enough to be worth the value of a Flaw.

Its an interesting dichotomy. I'm tempted, however, to have all of them function as complications.

[braincraft]

The single best mechanic for this I've ever seen is in Spirit of the Century/FATE3e.

Every character gets Aspects, which are narratively-defined details. Examples might be Bookworm, Wanderlust, or "Blood and Souls For My Lord Arioch!". The mechanic interacts with the Fate Point mechanic (think Drama Points from Unisystem) in that you are awarded Fate Points for being mechanically or narratively inconvenienced by your Aspects. If your Bookworm is distracted by reading material, or has trouble lifting something heavy because they spent all their time studying instead of working out, you get a Fate Point. Conversely, if you benefit somehow from your Aspect, you can spend a Fate Point to gain mechanically- or even narratively-defined bonuses. No Aspect is better or worse than any other, because even the most inconveniencing ones give you more Fate Points, and the most useful ones cost you more FP to benefit from.

Most relevant to the discussion is this: 'Disadvantages' are bonuses. You want to run into your archenemy, or get into difficult or embarassing situations due to your Psych Lims, because there's mechanical incentive. And really, what's the point in having something on your character sheet if you hate having to deal with it?

I don't buy the argument that disads give you more 'screen time'. They might, but so do beneficial characteristics; you get just as much glory from having useful skills or powers as from having disads that drive the narrative. Furthermore: something is going to be driving the narrative no matter what. Your character is going to have a personality, goals, preferences, even without the Psych Lims. He's going to gain enemies even without Hunteds, and he's going to have people he cares about even without DNPCs. Calling something a disadvantage when it's a given is stupid.

Actually listing 'disadvantages' is good for a single important reason: it makes explicit what kinds of problems you find interesting and want to explore. They should only give you 'points' over and above other player characters if they honestly provide more inconvenience... but in those cases, they actually should give you an account-balancing. Indexing compensatory benefits directly to practical inconvenience, as with Spirit of the Century's Aspects, is an elegantly simple and self-balancing mechanic, and it's so obvious in retrospect that I often wonder how anyone managed to play anything any other way.

Give it a try and see what you think.

[Vondy]

The single best mechanic for this I've ever seen is in Spirit of the Century/FATE3e.

Every character gets Aspects, which are narratively-defined details. Examples might be Bookworm, Wanderlust, or "Blood and Souls For My Lord Arioch!". The mechanic interacts with the Fate Point mechanic (think Drama Points from Unisystem) in that you are awarded Fate Points for being mechanically or narratively inconvenienced by your Aspects. If your Bookworm is distracted by reading material, or has trouble lifting something heavy because they spent all their time studying instead of working out, you get a Fate Point. Conversely, if you benefit somehow from your Aspect, you can spend a Fate Point to gain mechanically- or even narratively-defined bonuses. No Aspect is better or worse than any other, because even the most inconveniencing ones give you more Fate Points, and the most useful ones cost you more FP to benefit from.

Most relevant to the discussion is this: 'Disadvantages' are bonuses. You want to run into your archenemy, or get into difficult or embarassing situations due to your Psych Lims, because there's mechanical incentive. And really, what's the point in having something on your character sheet if you hate having to deal with it?

I don't buy the argument that disads give you more 'screen time'. They might, but so do beneficial characteristics; you get just as much glory from having useful skills or powers as from having disads that drive the narrative. Furthermore: something is going to be driving the narrative no matter what. Your character is going to have a personality, goals, preferences, even without the Psych Lims. He's going to gain enemies even without Hunteds, and he's going to have people he cares about even without DNPCs. Calling something a disadvantage when it's a given is stupid.

Actually listing 'disadvantages' is good for a single important reason: it makes explicit what kinds of problems you find interesting and want to explore. They should only give you 'points' over and above other player characters if they honestly provide more inconvenience... but in those cases, they actually should give you an account-balancing. Indexing compensatory benefits directly to practical inconvenience, as with Spirit of the Century's Aspects, is an elegantly simple and self-balancing mechanic, and it's so obvious in retrospect that I often wonder how anyone managed to play anything any other way.

Give it a try and see what you think.

It looks interesting, but some of the current disads would be very hard to work into a framework where they had both positive and negative impact, and some of the aspects are basically perks. I like the concept, but to do some of what we do with hero we'd almost have to have two categories of disads/complications/whatever.

[incrdbil]

So I have a question: What are your thoughts on Disadvantages and complications?

No mechanic can ever force a player to roleplay. You can try to try the above approach to bribe a player into roleplaying..and they'll still try to weasel out of any harsh effects while claiming the benefits. If someone creates a character with a certain trait for disadvantage points, then expects they wont ever have to deal with that disadvnatage, or roleplay in a manner that doesnt reflect the disadvantage, the problem is more severe than any system related bribe can correct. My current method is to talk to the player, privately about correcting the behavior, then if that fails, solve it in a more direct fashion. I may simply say that since they obviously don't want that disadvantage, I wont force it on them..but all of the XP they are going to earn in the future wont be awarded to them until that disadvantage is paid for. Or I, by direct GM intervention, change disadvantages to something they can't avoid--another hunter, or a vulnerability.

Of course, I'm growing more and more in favor of fewer disadvnatages needed for characters--too many tends to dilute their significance in terms of importance to the character. For example, I think one hunted is enough for most characters, and if you want a lot of people, take a 'Rogues Gallery' form of hunted.

[ghost-angel]

No mechanic can ever force a player to roleplay. You can try to try the above approach to bribe a player into roleplaying..and they'll still try to weasel out of any harsh effects while claiming the benefits. If someone creates a character with a certain trait for disadvantage points, then expects they wont ever have to deal with that disadvnatage, or roleplay in a manner that doesnt reflect the disadvantage, the problem is more severe than any system related bribe can correct. My current method is to talk to the player, privately about correcting the behavior, then if that fails, solve it in a more direct fashion. I may simply say that since they obviously don't want that disadvantage, I wont force it on them..but all of the XP they are going to earn in the future wont be awarded to them until that disadvantage is paid for. Or I, by direct GM intervention, change disadvantages to something they can't avoid--another hunter, or a vulnerability.

Of course, I'm growing more and more in favor of fewer disadvnatages needed for characters--too many tends to dilute their significance in terms of importance to the character. For example, I think one hunted is enough for most characters, and if you want a lot of people, take a 'Rogues Gallery' form of hunted.

QFT.


Personally, I'd like to try a hand at all Base Points and requesting that each character take a pre-set number of "Disadvantages" (say, 3 Disadvantages) that really pertain directly to the Character concept that the GM and Players can use as story telling tools.

I see an advantage to a smaller number of more meaningful Disadvantages divorced from "point values" and given "story values" instead.

If you don't like to use them in the first place there's no loss in setting the number to 0 needed.

[braincraft]

QFT.


Personally, I'd like to try a hand at all Base Points and requesting that each character take a pre-set number of "Disadvantages" (say, 3 Disadvantages) that really pertain directly to the Character concept that the GM and Players can use as story telling tools.

I see an advantage to a smaller number of more meaningful Disadvantages divorced from "point values" and given "story values" instead.

If you don't like to use them in the first place there's no loss in setting the number to 0 needed.

It's what I usually do. If 'disads' come up in-game, I give some sort of meta-mechanic currency.

[Killer Shrike]

I'm of a similar mind as the bolded print...I too have come to feel that while the basic idea behind having flaws that are counterbalanced by some advantage (points or whatever) is great and should definitely be retained, the actual implementation of them in the HERO System as design-time considerations has serious problems of the sort the bolded text refers to.

[incrdbil]

Personally, I'd like to try a hand at all Base Points and requesting that each character take a pre-set number of "Disadvantages" (say, 3 Disadvantages) that really pertain directly to the Character concept that the GM and Players can use as story telling tools.


Its sort of close to thsi way with the pints totals already.

With fixed character totals its not like most groups have a characters with widely varying disadvantage levels anyway. I rarely see players actually buying off diosadvantages. As a player, that always seemed like wasting experience...because the disadvantages were part of my character. Why use my earned XP to toss away something interesting about my character? If a disadvnatage had outlived its usefullness in eing a good plot hook, or defining my character, I asked to switch it out.

So, the question is..do you want to tell players just to have a certain number of disadantages..cause with some players, you'ld just that number of very, very minor disadvantages. The points level is a sort of suggested significance level of disadvanatges.

Next superher campaign, I'm going to change things up. Limit hunteds, make players take a far less significant number of disadvantages. They can feel free to take as many 0 point disadvantages as they want, if they prefer, if they feel the total I suggest is exceeded by the disadvantages they feel fit the character; I'll instead take efforts to make sure whatever disadvantages come into play don't exceed the others.

Ok, that unclear as heck, let me try an example. Say I only allow characters to take 75 points, but someone chooses 125 points of disadvanatges anyway--those over 75 being effectively 0 poitn disadvantages on the sheet, though they total up to 125.

There is a level of disadvantage activity I expect to infict on the 75 disadvantaged characters--the guy who chose to take 125 points worth (but didnt get any points for the total over 75) just has more for me to choose from.

[Vondy]

QFT.


Personally, I'd like to try a hand at all Base Points and requesting that each character take a pre-set number of "Disadvantages" (say, 3 Disadvantages) that really pertain directly to the Character concept that the GM and Players can use as story telling tools.

I see an advantage to a smaller number of more meaningful Disadvantages divorced from "point values" and given "story values" instead.

If you don't like to use them in the first place there's no loss in setting the number to 0 needed.

This is why I want to switch the system around a little bit. I'm already at the point where I just hand out a flat number of base points and no more. My players still take disadvantages (and a few of them take several because the soft disads are really character definition more than anything and they tend to go hog wild because it sets the character in their head). For me these things have always been about character definition and plot hooks, but the current system doesn't encourage people to think that way. It took several years for my now very long-term group (who all had role playing experience prior to gaming with me) to learn to think that way. I just want to be able to leverage it for hero points because it naturally plays into how that system is already supposed to work (in theory). I have no problem being arbitrary - I've been gaming mastering long-enough to know its more art than science and trust my gut - but having a mechanism that plays into the award of hero points makes it somewhat less so.

[Monolith]

Its an interesting dichotomy. I'm tempted, however, to have all of them function as complications.
There are several people on the M&M forum who do make them all Complications. I find doing that leads to a couple of issues for me though. First, when every problem grants a Hero Point the HPs become too abundant and the characters become too versatile. You really do not want the character having 10 to 15 Hero Points, or Heroic Action Points if you are using that system. Second, having some of them be Drawbacks allows for a level of granulation. Vulnerabilities grant different levels of effect. Susceptabilities have different stages as to how quickly they affect you. I would not want all those different levels of granulation come down to being worth the same Hero Point; and I also would not want to grant multiple Hero Point for a single problem based on granulation. That would just lead to problem one. I think those two issues are they way M&M makes the division the way it does.

[Vondy]

There are several people on the M&M forum who do make them all Complications. I find doing that leads to a couple of issues for me though. First, when every problem grants a Hero Point the HPs become too abundant and the characters become too versatile. You really do not want the character having 10 to 15 Hero Points, or Heroic Action Points if you are using that system. Second, having some of them be Drawbacks allows for a level of granulation. Vulnerabilities grant different levels of effect. Susceptabilities have different stages as to how quickly they affect you. I would not want all those different levels of granulation come down to being worth the same Hero Point; and I also would not want to grant multiple Hero Point for a single problem based on granulation. That would just lead to problem one. I think those two issues are they way M&M makes the division the way it does.

While the number of hero points coming into play doesn't bother me (because I can manage that as GM), I do see your point about the "hard" disadvantages needing gradation.

[Curufea]

I too believe that mechanics can't force roleplaying. But I'm of the opinion that the mechanics should be there for people who do not wish to, or are unable to, roleplay that particular part.

For example- folks may have skills in computer programming. I will have them roll if they know nothing about computers. However - if they know computers and describe what they are doing - there will be no skill roll involved.

Likewise social situations - not all roleplayers are good public speakers, hence the mechanic of the skill roll.

[wylodmayer]

As a long time HERO player, and newcomer (but zealous convert!) to M&M, I'm still torn on the whole Disads v Complications issue.

When I would take Disads for a character, I generally hoped they would come up... but I'm an outlier. I knew many people who would take something like (to use the earlier example) "Alcoholic" and then always have good reasons for not drinking until the GM "gently reminded" them to actually, you know, roleplay the Disad.

The problem I have with Disads is balancing benefit up front against disadvantage in play. I've certainly been in games (not HERO, but D&D Skills & Powers, which also had a Disad mechanic) where the GM would complicate every session with certain Disads, until it was no longer clear that I had gotten a "good deal" off of the ten or so extra points I earned in character creation. In other words, the increase in danger due to my having this Disad was far greater than the increase in danger I would have incurred by simply not having ten or so extra points in powers/skill/attributes or whatever I purchased with the Disad points.

Complications are much more straightforward, especially in M&M, where the Hero Points only last one session anyway. When I complicate a player's life over some Disad or another, I give him a Hero Point. Further, I can "yank his chain" more directly. Rather than debating whether or not Capt. Bloody Mary would have a drink at this point or not, based on the fact that her Disad is only at such-and-such level rather than this other level of intensity, I just hand the player a Hero Point and say, "You're at the bar, getting soused."

I like M&M's Complication mechanic better than the Drama Point mechanic in BtVS (although I like that, too) because I don't have to be as careful with Hero Points - they don't outlast the session, so even if I'm a little too free with them, it won't have (likely) a long term impact on the game.

The only problem I have with Complications is a problem that can equally plague Disads - GMs not using them adequately. I once played in a DC Heroes game where one of my fellow players had taken a Disad which basically meant he was constantly hounded by media, and not in a good way. Whereas Superman is always being given awards and keys to cities, if there was a news story done on this guy, you can bet it would be an accusation that he's an alien, or some paparazzi pics showing him adjusting himself or something embarassing and weird. It was a major part of his concept, in fact.

The GM never brought it up. Not once in nearly six months of play. He didn't deal with most of my Disads, either, which was irritating. This can happen with Complications, too, of course. When I take a Complication, I want it to be a COMPLICATION - so far, I've mostly seem GMs soft-pedal this sort of thing. This strikes me as weird - what better way to fill time, especially if you're looking for something to do and don't have much planned? Give a Hero Point (you can afford to be free with them - see above) and make trouble for a PC over some issue or another, then watch the roleplay for the next thirty minutes to an hour. Great timekiller.

I have an M&M character who's big Complication has only come up once, really, and never at a time when it would have REALLY complicated her life. It's really strange to me, especially since it's so easy for players to discard the Complications - the player and GM just agree that it's been sufficiently overcome through roleplay. Easy as that. I MIGHT (probably not, but might) be willing to ease off a PC's Disads a bit since they're so hard to get rid of (and there's a good argument that points in character creation are actually "worth" less than points in advancement, because the player can use the advancement points with more perspective), but a Complication can be overcome with detracting from advancement - I'd happily hammer those mercilessly.