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.
Originally Posted by Steve Long
Bookmarks