Disadvantages Issues

[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


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.