No Complications Please - Simplifying Hero

[Lucius]

 

From the very beginning of the Hero System, it's been possible to "sell off" Characteristics and Movement - even selling Running back to 0 if you want a totally lame character. It's also always been possible to take Disadvantages, which are now called Complications. Both concepts were always part of Hero.

The first concept, the "sell-back," has expanded, and it is now possible for example to sell back sight or some other sense, rather than taking blindness as a "Physical Complicaton." Such a sell-back would be recorded on the sheet more like a "Negative Power" and is not put in the section for Complications.

Remember that, it's important.


Meanwhile, I have grown increasingly unhappy with the way Hero handles Complications. And I think a lot of what is wrong comes down to what I call the "Frank-Yen-Pound" problem. Not because it frankly gives me a yen to pound on something (although sometimes it does) but because, like an incompetent banker trading several currencies "at par," we often treat things as being of equal value when they're not. To put it another way, if I built part of a house according to the metric blueprints and a carpenter "helping" me built other parts using the same plans but treating "meters" as "feet" I would not have a well-built house. I think it might, frankly, give me a yen to pound on the carpenter.

I don't think many experienced Hero players honestly believe that a 10 pt Disadvanage or Complication is the equal and opposite of a 10 pt Power. That, I think, is why the attitude took root and grew that one should always "max out" possible Disadvantages; the perception was that taking less than the maximum meant a weaker character. The current edition (6th) carries the assumption so far that it gives the impression the maximum is actually mandatory; you have to get deep into the book before even finding out that it is possible to take less than maximum Complications, or even none at all.

There is something ironic - and to my mind, symptomatic that something is wrong with the way we're doing things - in the fact that the near universal response to such an "un-Complicated" character would be, "But, but, a character who doesn't have any weaknesses will be too weak!"
 

I don't understand why, if a 10 pt Complication is not the equal and opposite of a 10 pt Power, it should be worth 10 pts. To reduce it to a tautology, if it's not worth 10 pts, then it's not worth 10 pts.
 

Conversely, if it is actually worth ANYTHING, then it's not worth nothing. Under the last two editions, Complications that exceed the maximum are worth no points. Taking Complications up to the maximum rewards the player, because those Complications are over-valued; taking Complications over the maximum punishes the player, because those Complications are undervalued. But some character concepts may call for more Complications, and other concepts call for fewer.

 

So why use them? Complications serve several purposes. SOME of them for example really are worth the points, and the value assigned to them compensates the player in much the same way the value of a sell-back does. Unluck I consider the ideal example of this kind, because it obviously really is the equal and opposite of Luck. Others serve as plot hooks or aids to the Game Operations Director. Dependent Non-Player Characters are an example. Or to tie the character into their world and define a place in the setting. An example is how a Hunted can establish a backstory linking the character to an important person or organization. And finally Complications can serve to define the character itself in important ways. Psychological Complications often exist largely to answer the question "what is this character like?" Many Complications of course serve more than one purpose; Superman wouldn't be Superman without kryptonite, it ties into his origin story, and it is a potentially debilitating hindrance.

 

But I think most of these purposes can be served in other ways.

 

 

Starting with my most recent Turakian Age campaign, I'm not using Complications. I AM using Negative Powers. I'm thinking of converting my earlier-and-still-ongoing Turakian game too. I'm posting this partly so you will all have a clue where I'm coming from (I have already referenced this decision in a thread). I am also aware that I am not the only one to abandon the use of Complications, I have read of others doing so. Mostly I think what I'm doing is a good idea and want to encourage others to follow my lead, but also that it is NOT such a wonderful idea that it can't be improved and expanded upon by the exceptionally brilliant group of people who use this forum.

 

 

I intend to post more later, about specifics of implementation etc, but it's well past midnight already and I've been composing this message for a long time tonight.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Uncomplicated palindromedary tagline

 

 

[Greywind]

When was it ever said or implied that a 10-point Disad/Complication was equal to a 10-point power? And why should they be? In most instances the Disad/Complication is a character problem that, during the course of the game, the player wishes to deal with. Powers will come up quite regularly by comparison. A player/character will get far more usage out of a 10-point power than time spent dealing with that 10-point Disad/Complication.

 

The relative worth of the Disads/Complication is usually in the role-playing aspect whereas powers fall under the roll-playing aspect.

[Scott Baker]

Interesting. I haven't followed any other thread where I remember this coming up. I look forward to hearing more.

[Nolgroth]

I've not seen this take on Complications/Disadvantages before. I pretty much dislike the assumption that a character has to be disadvantaged in some way in order to get the full point allotment. It has bugged me for a very long time. In recent years I did away with Complications being required altogether. This allows me to be more fluid, as a GM, when introducing nemesis characters or other, similar concepts. The weakness in my "system" is that there are characters with debilitating physical disadvantages. I like how you are approaching this and am interested to see what you come up with.

[Christopher]

Starting with my most recent Turakian Age campaign, I'm not using Complications. I AM using Negative Powers. I'm thinking of converting my earlier-and-still-ongoing Turakian game too. I'm posting this partly so you will all have a clue where I'm coming from (I have already referenced this decision in a thread). I am also aware that I am not the only one to abandon the use of Complications, I have read of others doing so. Mostly I think what I'm doing is a good idea and want to encourage others to follow my lead, but also that it is NOT such a wonderful idea that it can't be improved and expanded upon by the exceptionally brilliant group of people who use this forum.

I too think that the Rules Construct of Complications (and how it ties into the Point Calculation) is unfitting too.

I think it was implemented to make Role Playing opportunities (it forces/entices you to think about your Character in unusual ways).

Getting rid of it is like getting rid of Figureds or Comeliness. It's propably the right way to go more generic/general, but people will resist "because it was so since edition X".

But the problems being solved by Complications can be solved a lot other ways. Indeed I have massive difficulties to "filling up" Complication points. In turn I had massive amounts of "Rolepalying potential", but nothing of that was "Complication Worthy Material". I never have enough stuff I wanted to come up on a regular basis (and I already took "Foe of the Week" Type Complciations to try to solve this). For me Complications the rules concept are actually a hinderance to making Characters with Roleplaying potential.

 

Not sure I agree with the take on Negative Powers, but I will wait for more details first. Limitations on inherent powers, perhaps (like your inherent Density Increase/Growth Characteristics costing less due to the drawbacks).

 

When was it ever said or implied that a 10-point Disad/Complication was equal to a 10-point power? And why should they be? In most instances the Disad/Complication is a character problem that, during the course of the game, the player wishes to deal with. Powers will come up quite regularly by comparison. A player/character will get far more usage out of a 10-point power than time spent dealing with that 10-point Disad/Complication.

 

The relative worth of the Disads/Complication is usually in the role-playing aspect whereas powers fall under the roll-playing aspect.

But that 10 point Complication does bring you 10 point of powers. Exactly. Take away the complication and do not replace it, you have to loose 10 points.

If it is only Role Playing, why does it affect Roll-Playing by giving you more points for said Roll-Playing?

Plus some stuff like Weakness/Succeptibility/Dependence acually affects Roll-Playing much stronger then Role palying.

 

I pretty much dislike the assumption that a character has to be disadvantaged in some way in order to get the full point allotment. It has bugged me for a very long time.

The asumption is clearly spelled. In the Rules. In larger Font, bolded, underlined and with a paragraph for itself.

If it is less limiting then the book value, it is also worth less points (spelled out extra for Multiform and in the APG's rules for varriable Complications).

[Fireg0lem]

This is quite similar to what our group does, although not exactly the same.

 

We broke Complications into two types:

 

1) Complications that are "really" Negative Powers, like Vulnerability to Fire (limit on defenses) or the part of Size where you get CV penalties (just take the CV penalties), and you just buy those as negative powers.The general rule here is that these DO need to be "worth" their cost and that they should be things that the GM doesn't need to "work" to make come up. Things that regularly impact your ability to fight or use your skills or powers are supposed to go here. If you can't build it as a negative power for whatever reason, it is a Custom Power with a negative cost equal to it's value as a Complication.

 

2) Complications that are "plot" complications, like Vulnerability to Kryptonite, Code of Conduct, or the part of size where you have trouble fitting into normal-sized doorways. These follow the convention that everyone should "max out" these complications, and are Complications like in the standard rules. We all know that they are "overpriced" relative to Type 1 Complications or Powers but that's OK because everyone has the same amount.

 

The idea is that Type 2 complications are your bucket of plot hooks which can be whatever you want, and it's the GM's job to use them in interesting ways (as compared to using them to punish your character). Type 1 complications really are "anti-powers" that actively make your character weaker. 

 

Obviously there's a bit of fuzziness - in some campaigns Vulnerable to Silver is a Type 1 complication (like in a fantasy game where everyone knows werewolves are hurt by silver and silver weapons are pretty common - meaning that a good portion of antagonists will be able to use this against you), and others where it's a Type 2 complication (like a superhero campaign where people don't typically carry silver bullets around - but an antagonist who figures out that you're a werewolf and not a shapeshifting mutant or whatever might be able to take advantage of it). 

[phoenix240]

I'm not sure this simplifies things or is more of a lateral move, a different way of approaching things but not nessescarily simpler or better. Complications/Disadvantages have been an aspect of the system I haven't really had many problems with. I lowered the required number for most of my games to keep them focused on what the player found interesting instead of scrambling for them but other than that its been fine. I don't think a 10 pt Disad is meant to be "equal" to a 10 point Power in a strict sense. I'm not sure it can be.

 

Maybe the OP would prefer pay as you go style Disadvantages for most of the more role playing oriented ones. The player gets some reward or benefit when/if they come up and there's no required minimum since they are there own reward? Allot of gamers love such systems. I prefer Hero's paid for up front style but I've used Pay as you go successfully in the past.

 

I know for me Disadvantages are practically the most important part of the character sheet. They what truly define the character for me. You can make a pretty generic sheet for Flying Bricks but its largely the Disads that make it Superman or Hyperion or Black Adam so I'd hate to see them go away entirely.

[Nolgroth]

 

The asumption is clearly spelled. In the Rules. In larger Font, bolded, underlined and with a paragraph for itself.

If it is less limiting then the book value, it is also worth less points (spelled out extra for Multiform and in the APG's rules for varriable Complications).

 

I can see where my previous wording may have been confusing so please allow me to clarify. The entire concept of Disadvantages/Complications being at all required is what bugs me. In other words, I think every single Complication should be worth 0 points and have no effect on the accounting of the character. One of the methods I was gearing up to try (but never got around to) is using experience bonuses when I invoked a Disadvantage/Complication and the player made an effort to role-play it. That way, there is still an incentive to use Disadvantages/Complications/Flaws/Drawbacks or whatever you want to name them. 

 

My dislike of "Points for Crippling Factors" extends far beyond Hero. I don't like them in Top Secret S/I, World of Darkness games, Fuzion, nor Shadowrun either. My litmus test, using Hero, is Perfect Man vs. Cripple Man.  Perfect Man is the perfect expression of the human form. He has no physical limitations at all, gets along well with most folks and is part of mainstream society. He has no rage issues, isn't particularly vulnerable to any substances and isn't dependent on something to survive. He gets 250 points to build his character.  Now Cripple Man has an irascible temper that causes folks to dislike him. In fact, some folks have even taken that to an extreme and now want to see him come to harm. Cripple Man's bad attitude may be due to the fact that he lost both legs in his origin story and has to use a wheel chair for mobility. Also as part of his origin story, Cripple Man is deathly afraid of flying.  So now we rack up the Complication Points: Hunted, Physical Limitation, and Psychological Limitation. You might even throw in a very mild Distinctive Feature for being confined to a wheel chair. People tend to notice that sort of thing so it would stick in their minds after a stressful event.  Cripple Man has 325 points to build his character. In essence, Cripple Man is much more powerful than Perfect Man. There is a strong dissonance that forms in my brain on that. I know he has to deal with the the fact that somebody wants to kill him, needs a wheel chair and refuses to fly. That just doesn't seem enough of a justification for Cripple Man to outclass Perfect Man.

 

Part of the problem is using those Complications in game. It might be that Perfect Man and Cripple Man adventure into the Subterranean depths of Ancient Hollowland. Flight would be so rare as to render his Psych Limit useless. Sure, he could trade that for something else, but why should he? When the game started, nobody knew that Ancient Hollowland would become the focus of the campaign. Cripple Man's player bought the Disadvantage in good faith, thinking it would come up. Maybe, in character, he urged his partner to go explore Ancient Hollowland knowing that he probably wouldn't have to fly. Whatever the reason, by now being unaffected by his Psych Lim, Cripple Man got a free allotment of points that was not available to Perfect Man.

 

My solution is to take the focus away from points and find other ways to reward a player/character for taking Complications. As I mentioned earlier, Experience was going to be my method of reward. I've also considered a Heroic Action Point "economy" similar to the FATE Point system. So far I have not been able to playtest either system. 

 

And that whole message got rather long-winded. Sorry about that.

[Christopher]

And that whole message got rather long-winded. Sorry about that.

Rather to long a text, then to unclear a text.

Looks like we are pretty much on the same page: Complications should not be part of the Sheet accounting. They are not suiteable Rules Constructs. And what was tried to solve by making them rules constructs (instead of just something you write under background/campaign info) can be solved a lot other ways.

[Greywind]

Simple answer: don't use them. They are not, never have been required. The points garnered from them are a bonus for giving the GM a place to start interactions with/for the character. Nothing more. Nothing less. I posit the "imbalance" is purely a mental one. "Why can he do more than I?" "Uh, because you chose not to avail yourself, or me, to those bonus points from Disads/Complications." Suck it up, Buttercup.

[Scott Baker]

Part of the problem is using those Complications in game. It might be that Perfect Man and Cripple Man adventure into the Subterranean depths of Ancient Hollowland. Flight would be so rare as to render his Psych Limit useless. Sure, he could trade that for something else, but why should he? When the game started, nobody knew that Ancient Hollowland would become the focus of the campaign. Cripple Man's player bought the Disadvantage in good faith, thinking it would come up. Maybe, in character, he urged his partner to go explore Ancient Hollowland knowing that he probably wouldn't have to fly. Whatever the reason, by now being unaffected by his Psych Lim, Cripple Man got a free allotment of points that was not available to Perfect Man.

 

As I noted above, I think this is an interesting idea and am reading all of the follow-up. I'm totally open to some new ideas. However, I have to say that I find this particular example points out, if following the rules as written, something the GM is ultimately responsible for negotiating. A limitation that doesn't limit isn't worth any points. A complication that doesn't complicate isn't worth any points. When the characters are created, the GM should know what these "negatives" are and plan accordingly. Given a change in the focus of the campaign, there should be some discussion with the player(s). Perhaps Cripple Man finally has to buy off that fear (with an appropriate story--could be before or after they leave Hollowland--but make him pay the points). If Cripple Man's powers don't work in some circumstance, plan for how that will come about.

 

The players are told to expect these things to occur. If the GM does not follow up, you can't blame the system for that.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your concept. And Hero is a toolbox, so change it up as you will.

 

In fact, I've experienced some of the frustration you are talking about, specifically with limitations, rather than complications. My character had powers with no limitations. Other characters had limitations. I certainly felt the effects when those limitations had little or no effect on an on-going basis. But, this is not a problem with the system, but with how we used it.

 

Now, back to the discussion at hand.

[Chris Goodwin]

Now I'm thinking back to 3rd edition, where instead of a max value in Disadvantages/Complications by type, there was diminishing returns: the first two Disadvantages of a given type were full value, the next two were half value, the next two one quarter value, and so on.  There also weren't hard limits on character point values; most "standard superhero" games would range from 225-275 points (roughly equivalent to 250 points in 4th/5th).  These two together meant that the points from Disadvantages really were important, not just a ribbon for showing up, and you could take fewer of them if you wanted to be less Disadvantaged.  In other words, it wasn't just an expected point value that you had to cover; you really did have to and get to choose your problems.  

[sinanju]

I've never liked campaigns where I was expected to (required to, if I wanted to build my character on the same number of points as everyone else) load up on disads/complications until I was a quivering wreck of neuroses, with several severe physical limitations or weaknesses (like Kryptonite) and enemies Hunting me and on and on and on. So I liked the change in 6th Edition to generally not needing to accumulate so many disad points.

 

But I would go one better: Don't require ANY complications of players. If the game is 400 point Supers, everyone gets 400 points. Period. If you want to take Complications, feel free. But you get no points for them...up front. (So don't bother with setting point values or frequency rolls or any of that.) When and if they come up IN PLAY, and you roleplay them, the GM should give you some XP for it. THAT'S how you get extra XP out of Complications. If they actually come up and you actually roleplay the consequences, you get a cookie. Metaphorically speaking. If they don't come up, or you don't roleplay them (meta excuse: you made your saving roll not to go beserk....) you don't get a point.

 

It still gives the GM plot devices to use against you, but it doesn't require you to take any complications unless you really WANT to role-play them.

[Ndreare]

We have not used point for complications for long time. Instead we use the rules for Hero Action Points and I award them whenever a complication comes into play.

 

The players love it and it allows them to develope their characters at their own pace.

[megaplayboy]

Well, another way to go with regard to having more complications than you can get points for is just to boost a couple complications to reflect the "package deal" that comes with, say, being a vampire(e.g. Physical complication: Vampire would include needing to be invited to enter a residence, not being able to cross running water unaided, etc., and then perhaps there might be a general susceptibility to sunlight/silver/wooden stakes/holy water/crucifixes etc. Each might net you a bucketload of points, and that would about cover it.) Kryptonians all have the same complications, so why have to divvy it up into multiple categories when one or two might do the trick?

[phoenix240]

I've never liked campaigns where I was expected to (required to, if I wanted to build my character on the same number of points as everyone else) load up on disads/complications until I was a quivering wreck of neuroses, with several severe physical limitations or weaknesses (like Kryptonite) and enemies Hunting me and on and on and on. So I liked the change in 6th Edition to generally not needing to accumulate so many disad points.

 

But I would go one better: Don't require ANY complications of players. If the game is 400 point Supers, everyone gets 400 points. Period. If you want to take Complications, feel free. But you get no points for them...up front. (So don't bother with setting point values or frequency rolls or any of that.) When and if they come up IN PLAY, and you roleplay them, the GM should give you some XP for it. THAT'S how you get extra XP out of Complications. If they actually come up and you actually roleplay the consequences, you get a cookie. Metaphorically speaking. If they don't come up, or you don't roleplay them (meta excuse: you made your saving roll not to go beserk....) you don't get a point.

 

It still gives the GM plot devices to use against you, but it doesn't require you to take any complications unless you really WANT to role-play them.

 

That's the "Pay as you go" style that games like Mutants and Masterminds 3rd use. Many people seem to like it. I'm not a fan For one I don't usually use "Heroic Action points" and giving out Exp created some issues with rapid advancement and it felt odd for Disads like Vulnerabilities and things like a vampire's reaction to sunlight that couldn't be "turned off" or ignored in game. But its a method that many enjoy.

 

One of the GMs in our co campaign suggested splitting Disads up to into two categories. Some paid up front. They would be constant things that were physically intrinsic the character in some way (Vampires burn in sunlight, for example) while others would be rewards if they came up like psychological limitation. In the end we felt it was too complicated and just went with the base rules with fewer required Disads.

[Uthanar]

The pay as you go method my players and I very much enjoyed while playing Mutants & Masterminds.  However, when we brought it over to Hero System we found it much less enjoyable.  I am uncertain what made it less enjoyable. 

I will be paying attention to what is going on in this thread to see further development!

[JasonPacker]

Having read your initial thoughts on this, Lucius, I've had a hard time letting go of the idea. I immediately wandered into thoughts of using a FATE-like Aspects approach, where every hero gets his 400 points no matter what, but must provide the GM with five hooks, including one that can be secret or public identity. No specific numbers associated with them, just possible actual complicating situations. 

[Scott Baker]

Having read your initial thoughts on this, Lucius, I've had a hard time letting go of the idea. I immediately wandered into thoughts of using a FATE-like Aspects approach, where every hero gets his 400 points no matter what, but must provide the GM with five hooks, including one that can be secret or public identity. No specific numbers associated with them, just possible actual complicating situations. 

 

Based on this thread this is the exact sort of thing I had been mulling over. I've never played FATE, so had no idea how that system worked.

[JasonPacker]

Based on this thread this is the exact sort of thing I had been mulling over. I've never played FATE, so had no idea how that system worked.

I'm not sure there's a more different game from Hero than Fate, but as it is available for free on the web-based SRD, it's easy enough to read up on how Aspects work and how they might slot into Hero.  fate-srd.com

 

Briefly, a good Aspect is supposed to be a double-edged sword. Good, so you can invoke it yourself to gain bonuses in play, but also potentially bad so the GM can invoke that side on you and you gain more fate points to use to enable you to use the good side of the aspect. I wouldn't go quite that far with my implementation in Hero, but I would definitely leverage those hooks they handed to me in both positive and negative ways.

[phoenix240]

I didn't know until this thread that Disadvantages and Complications were so unpopular.

[Greywind]

To me, they're too much a part of the system to want to toss away.

[Ndreare]

I didn't know until this thread that Disadvantages and Complications were so unpopular.

Not only with people on this forum but even the other Hero players I have met face to face find the complication system distasteful.

[Ninja-Bear]

Once I learned that you are allowed to adjust the base points to disadvantage points, I really enjoy the system. I go with smaller amount of disavantages but the ones that the pcs rather have than searching to make the numbers. However having disadvatages written out is very useful tool.

[Chris Goodwin]

I didn't know until this thread that Disadvantages and Complications were so unpopular.

 

Nor I.