Disadvantages Issues

[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.

[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.