No Complications Please - Simplifying Hero

[Chris Goodwin]

Disadvantages were one of the things that drew me to the system ("You mean you actually have a reason now to take a character with a missing eye?  Cool!")

 

I think the problems people have with it really do stem from the 4th edition paradigm of "Ye shall have this many points and no more!"  If you put a hard limit on it, people will go up to the limit and want more.  I'm really thinking now that a point range with diminishing returns is the way to go.  

[Christopher]

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. 

This system is dependant on what the GM considers a "valid hook". So would only take stuff that counts for 20 Points worth of Complications. Others might be able to use a 5 point thing for mayor effect.

 

Disadvantages were one of the things that drew me to the system ("You mean you actually have a reason now to take a character with a missing eye?  Cool!")

That is why I think they are a bad solution to a existign problem. They try to get you to Role Play, with rewards for the Roll Play. They try to rulefy* Roleplaying.

 

*I made this word up.

 

 

Another point buy system that has a concepts of Positive/Negative aspects is Shadowrun 4E. But I have to delve into some old books to find out how they were called and worked.

[phoenix240]

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

 

I haven't met any other Hero players before now that had a problem with them, honestly.

[phoenix240]

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.

 

Yeah, I enjoy that aspect too, turning the number of Disads up and down can have allot of impact the tone of a campaign. Overall, I've lowered them across the board for most of my Hero Games though. A few good Disads that help define the PC are good without having the player scurrying for points.

[Chris Goodwin]

They try to get you to Role Play, with rewards for the Roll Play. They try to rulefy* Roleplaying.

 

I disagree.  

[phoenix240]

Nor I.  

OTOH, maybe I'm over reacting out of surprise. It hasn't been an avalanche of people calling for them to be discarded. The Disadvantage/Complications are one of the the things that make Hero System, well, Hero System for me.

 

But in the end, Hero System is a tool kit. It's easy enough to retrofit. You can drop them entirely quite easily. Just give players a set amount of points. Psychological aspects are role played and fluff for the most part, things like Vulnerabilities can be simulated with Limited Defenses. Some physical Disads can be approximated by selling off Characteristics or be fluff. Not sure how you'd do Susceptibilities...

[Christopher]

Another point buy system that has a concepts of Positive/Negative aspects is Shadowrun 4E. But I have to delve into some old books to find out how they were called and worked.

Found it. They are called "Qualities".

A player can take positive Qualities that cost points. Mostly they work like Hero Pers, Talents or powers. Some are just Skill Levels. Some very powerfull might have a "2 edged sword" aspect to them, but overall they are just positive.

Or take negative that give points. This works closest to heroes Complications.

 

A character cannot have more then 35 BP* in positive or get more then 35 BP from negative ones.

 

*Build points are Shadowrun 4E's equivalent to Character points. Average is 400 BP, wich is about equal to Hero 6E's "Powerfull heroic" level.

[Chris Goodwin]

OTOH, maybe I'm over reacting out of surprise. It hasn't been an avalanche of people calling for them to be discarded. The Disadvantage/Complications are one of the the things that make Hero System, well, Hero System for me.

Ditto.

 

But in the end, Hero System is a tool kit. It's easy enough to retrofit. You can drop them entirely quite easily. Just give players a set amount of points. Psychological aspects are role played and fluff for the most part, things like Vulnerabilities can be simulated with Limited Defenses. Some physical Disads can be approximated by selling off Characteristics or be fluff. Not sure how you'd do Susceptibilities...

Back to the original topic of the thread. Susceptibilities sounds to me like the most obvious example of a Complication/Disadvantage as a "negative Power" that Lucius started off the thread with. Instead of Susceptibility: 3d6 from Magnetic Fields, you'd have something like Blast 3d6, NND, Trigger: Magnetic Fields, Negative Power.  That last (Negative Power) would probably be the Modifier that does the deed, so to speak, and probably includes things like User Does Not Control Power and Power Only Affects User.  A Vulnerability could easily be done this way as well:  Vulnerability, 2x STUN from Fire, becomes Blast 12d6, NND, Trigger: When Hit By Fire Attacks, Only To Double Stun Of Incoming Attack, Negative Power.  

 

Physical Complication:  Missing An Arm could be Extra Limbs: Arm, Negative Power.  No Legs would be almost the same, plus selling off all of your base Running.  

 

Edit:  Maybe two different Negative Power Modifiers:  Lack, which means you're missing whatever the thing is, and Effect, which means whatever the thing is affects you under certain conditions.  

[Chris Goodwin]

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.

 

Back in the day, a standard superhero started with a base of 100 points.  If you took no Disadvantages at all, you got your 100 points and that was it.  You weren't much of a superhero on 100 points, though.  As time has passed and point levels have ramped up, you're at less of a... disadvantage, if you will, if you take no Disadvantages/Complications; in 6e you're at 325 points vs. the 400 pointer who has the full complement.  A character with an extremely tight build could easily be viable at 325 total points in a game with 400-pointers.  

[phoenix240]

Ditto.

 

Back to the original topic of the thread. Susceptibilities sounds to me like the most obvious example of a Complication/Disadvantage as a "negative Power" that Lucius started off the thread with. Instead of Susceptibility: 3d6 from Magnetic Fields, you'd have something like Blast 3d6, NND, Trigger: Magnetic Fields, Negative Power.  That last (Negative Power) would probably be the Modifier that does the deed, so to speak, and probably includes things like User Does Not Control Power and Power Only Affects User.  A Vulnerability could easily be done this way as well:  Vulnerability, 2x STUN from Fire, becomes Blast 12d6, NND, Trigger: When Hit By Fire Attacks, Only To Double Stun Of Incoming Attack, Negative Power.  

 

Physical Complication:  Missing An Arm could be Extra Limbs: Arm, Negative Power.  No Legs would be almost the same, plus selling off all of your base Running.  

 

Edit:  Maybe two different Negative Power Modifiers:  Lack, which means you're missing whatever the thing is, and Effect, which means whatever the thing is affects you under certain conditions.  

 

I'm not clear on how "Negative Powers" are different from Disadvantages or Complications except named differently and somewhat more complicated in construction or how it simplifies the system?

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm not clear on how "Negative Powers" are different from Disadvantages or Complications except named differently and somewhat more complicated in construction or how it simplifies the system?

 

I don't think it simplifies the system, myself.  I think it... umm... complicates it quite a bit.  But it's definitely an interesting idea with potential interesting applications.  

[sinanju]

Disadvantages were one of the things that drew me to the system ("You mean you actually have a reason now to take a character with a missing eye?  Cool!")

 

I think the problems people have with it really do stem from the 4th edition paradigm of "Ye shall have this many points and no more!"  If you put a hard limit on it, people will go up to the limit and want more.  I'm really thinking now that a point range with diminishing returns is the way to go.  

 

I don't dislike Complications. I dislike games in which I'm forced* to take Complications I don't really want to play out just to get the standard number of starting character points. If I was given 400 points, period, with no requirement for (and no extra points for) Complications, I would still take some. I'd just take the ones that fit my character concept and play them out.

 

*For certain values of "forced"--your mileage may vary.

[Chris Goodwin]

I don't dislike Complications. I dislike games in which I'm forced* to take Complications I don't really want to play out just to get the standard number of starting character points. If I was given 400 points, period, with no requirement for (and no extra points for) Complications, I would still take some. I'd just take the ones that fit my character concept and play them out.

 

*For certain values of "forced"--your mileage may vary.

Well, sure. In the 3e point level days (base 100 points), you were more or less "forced" to take enough Disadvantages that your character would be at least viable if not competitive, but upper limits weren't formalized. In 6e, you're not so much; 350 or even 325 points can easily be viable in a game with 400 point characters.

 

4e kind of changed it, from "no upper limit" to "here's a 150 point hole that you can fill, But No More." Which is what we've had ever since.

 

I personally think that 75 points is enough for a standard heroic game but not quite enough for a standard superhero, and my own anecdata from looking over posted builds seems to bear this out. So if you were to play in the 400 point game, with no requirement for Complications, would you take 100 points worth? I've had superheroes that I could easily come up with 100 points worth for, and in fact many where those last 50 were somewhat painful (and then I was making painful point shavings on top of that to get it down to the hard limit).

 

If you were to play in, let's say, a superheroic game where you got 300 points for free, and could take any number above that -- and got points for all of them, except with 3e style diminishing returns* -- how many would you take? Let's say around 75-125 points, with most characters taking around 100. I know, the answer is fully "It depends," but I'm curious about reasoning.

 

* First two at full value (edit: per category), next two at half value, all further ones at one-quarter.

[JasonPacker]

Well, sure.  In the 3e point level days (base 100 points), you were more or less "forced" to take enough Disadvantages that your character would be at least viable if not competitive, but upper limits weren't formalized.  In 6e, you're not so much; 350 or even 325 points can easily be viable in a game with 400 point characters.  

 

4e kind of changed it, from "no upper limit" to "here's a 150 point hole that you can fill, But No More."  Which is what we've had ever since.  

 

I personally think that 75 points is enough for a standard heroic game but not quite enough for a standard superhero, and my own anecdata from looking over posted builds seems to bear this out.  So if you were to play in the 400 point game, with no requirement for Complications, would you take 100 points worth?  I've had superheroes that I could easily come up with 100 points worth for, and in fact many where those last 50 were somewhat painful (and then I was making painful point shavings on top of that to get it down to the hard limit).  

 

If you were to play in, let's say, a superheroic game where you got 300 points for free, and could take any number above that -- and got points for all of them, except with 3e style diminishing returns* -- how many would you take?  Let's say around 75-125 points, with most characters taking around 100.  I know, the answer is fully "It depends," but I'm curious about reasoning.  

 

* First two at full value, next two at half value, all further ones at one-quarter.  

 

Wasn't the old rule that you got full value for the first two examples of a specific disadvantage (Hunted, say, or Psych Lim), not just for your two highest-valued disadvantages. I recall this because of the sheer number of people who had two Hunteds, two Psych Lims, two Vulnerabilities, two...

[sinanju]

Well, sure.  In the 3e point level days (base 100 points), you were more or less "forced" to take enough Disadvantages that your character would be at least viable if not competitive, but upper limits weren't formalized.  In 6e, you're not so much; 350 or even 325 points can easily be viable in a game with 400 point characters.  

 

4e kind of changed it, from "no upper limit" to "here's a 150 point hole that you can fill, But No More."  Which is what we've had ever since.  

 

I personally think that 75 points is enough for a standard heroic game but not quite enough for a standard superhero, and my own anecdata from looking over posted builds seems to bear this out.  So if you were to play in the 400 point game, with no requirement for Complications, would you take 100 points worth?  I've had superheroes that I could easily come up with 100 points worth for, and in fact many where those last 50 were somewhat painful (and then I was making painful point shavings on top of that to get it down to the hard limit).  

 

If you were to play in, let's say, a superheroic game where you got 300 points for free, and could take any number above that -- and got points for all of them, except with 3e style diminishing returns* -- how many would you take?  Let's say around 75-125 points, with most characters taking around 100.  I know, the answer is fully "It depends," but I'm curious about reasoning.  

 

* First two at full value, next two at half value, all further ones at one-quarter.  

 

Given that I tend to wind up gaming with (other) power-gaming rules lawyers, an open-ended "as many disads as you want"--even with diminishing returns after the first couple) would be a non-starter. Sure as shooting, SOMEONE would build a high-point-cost monstrosity and overpower all the other characters.

 

Assuming I could trust the GM to winnow out such characters*, I'd probably buy somewhere between 50-75 points of disads. Exactly how many would come down to a balancing act between taking disads (or complications) I didn't really want just to get the points and shaving down my initial concept of the character to something affordable that maintains the flavor I want.

 

*A group of power-gaming rules lawyers can be a lot of fun as long as the GM is willing and able to ride herd on them. He has to be enough of a rules lawyer himself to recognize an exploit when he sees one (preferably while vetting the characters before play), and willing to say no to a player when necessary. The players have to be willing accept "no" from the GM in the interests of everyone having a good time. Given those two things (both of which I've been lucky enough to find in more than one gaming group over the years), it results in a lot fun.

[Scott Baker]

Wasn't the old rule that you got full value for the first two examples of a specific disadvantage (Hunted, say, or Psych Lim), not just for your two highest-valued disadvantages. I recall this because of the sheer number of people who had two Hunteds, two Psych Lims, two Vulnerabilities, two...

 

Yes. That started with 1E.

[Nolgroth]

OTOH, maybe I'm over reacting out of surprise. It hasn't been an avalanche of people calling for them to be discarded. The Disadvantage/Complications are one of the the things that make Hero System, well, Hero System for me.

 

But in the end, Hero System is a tool kit. It's easy enough to retrofit. You can drop them entirely quite easily. Just give players a set amount of points. Psychological aspects are role played and fluff for the most part, things like Vulnerabilities can be simulated with Limited Defenses. Some physical Disads can be approximated by selling off Characteristics or be fluff. Not sure how you'd do Susceptibilities...

 

As somebody that does not like Complications, I also do not feel any need whatsoever to impose my own tastes upon other people. I will maintain that they are a clumsy way to reward roleplaying hooks as they are currently designed. As you mentioned though, removing them from the Hero System is a simple matter of adjusting points. For those that like to use them, sliding the scale to required points is easy enough. No need to remove them from the official rules.

 

I think the trick is finding new ways to reward players for having characters with plot hooks. If an alternate method is not palatable to the individual GM/Players group then the existing method is still available. I just think that new ideas have surfaced in gaming that caused folks, like me, to look critically at the way we've been doing things. I've simply found another way to handle the concept that fits me better and fits well within the existing rules. Not the first thing I've changed about how I intend to apply Hero rules to my own games (should I ever try to run one again) and probably not the last.

[Ninja-Bear]

I don't dislike Complications. I dislike games in which I'm forced* to take Complications I don't really want to play out just to get the standard number of starting character points. If I was given 400 points, period, with no requirement for (and no extra points for) Complications, I would still take some. I'd just take the ones that fit my character concept and play them out.

 

*For certain values of "forced"--your mileage may vary.

Me too Sinanju hence my previous post about adjusting base points.

[Ninja-Bear]

One of the ways that that complications are a tool for the GM is that character flaws are written out before hand and (at least should be) agreed upon by GM and player. Now I have friend and which I learned the fun art of taking complicationd which are fun to roleplay.  I took a psy lim "protective of group" for my fantasy character and gave me the liberty to leap after the ogre in camp and chase the beast down.I know that it would not be mature but if I played in a game with no complications and then a GM tried to affect my character, well it wouldn't end well. 

Me "I shoot the villian with a gun to kill"

GM"But I thought you were playing a Batman clone and Batman does't kill?"

Me "Well I hate the villian andI don't want to deal with him again!"

Me"Bang bang"

[TheRealDeal]

The problem I find is the point value associated with Complications. For those that are always on or have an objective trigger, it is fine to assign some point value, but call them Drawbacks or Disadvantages. I would also restrict these to only things that primarily impact the Hero taking them. So Hunted would not fall here IMO, but below as a Complication, as it can impact all Heroes not just (or even primarily all the time) the one who is Hunted.

 

Complications could then be all the other items that are not always on (vulnerable is always on so it would not be here) or do not have an objective trigger (berserk has an objective trigger so it would not be here) or are subject to GM whim (like Hunted, Dependent NPCs, etc). These would give no points, but the GM could require each Hero to take a certain "point" value of them (they have points assigned to them, but do not give these as additional points to spend, just given to rank each Complication against the others) and then have these in his pocket to use as needed. Psychological complications could go here, and they could help the player shape how he plays his Hero.

 

This is just a vague outline. One thing I do and this idea would allow it more readily since Complications give no points, is use Complications as consequences for Hero actions. So you wield the elven artifact? You now have a Psychological Limitation against harming animals, nature and elves. You raided the Dragon's Lair? Now you are Hunted: Greedy Dwarves who considered that hoard theirs! This makes Complications more fun for the GM and allows consequences to be given which are not connected to actual XP. 

 

You can also eliminate Complications once you do whatever it takes to be rid of them. This sets up goals and subplots. 

[Sean Waters]

Obvious but worth saying:  with a limited point budget, complications get you more points whereas sell back allows you to move the points around.

 

This leads to the Perfect Being/Crippled Being problem above – although that is not uncommon.  Everyone from The Joker to James Bond has problems and issues that inform their character and background.

 

One way around this is to require a number of points of Complications.  Break the cognitive chain to More Complications ) = More Points, they are just a necessary way to build character.

 

That way Perfect being is good and noble, which is a Psych Lim (going old school) whereas Crippled Man suffers rages and has odd looks.  Neither is more powerful, both are quite distinctive.

 

Distinctive is a real point to me in a RPG.  Complications should be a way to make the character more interesting.  Loading them all up with Hunteds and Psych Lims: Loves Puppies feels weasly, but then Susceptibility to Water is ridiculously undervalued.

 

Bear this in mind that, in a decent game, most characters or teams will pick up Hunteds, in effect – properly realised villains and groups will react to the characters and perhaps pursue vendettas against them.  As A GM I don’t like having to lever VIPER encounters into a scenario that was not written that way.

 

Some Complications – most of them – hand some degree of control over to the character to the GM.  They should be little gifts to the GM to make their stories more interesting, which, in turn, should enhance all the players’ experiences.

 

So.  Change Complications, don’t ditch them. 

 

Require the player to define what it is that makes their character interesting.  Set out headings:

 

Ambitions

Attitudes

Prejudices

Physical issues

Relationship issues

Enemies

Rivals

Anything else

 

The player fills that in with prose, the GM translates that to complications, either with actual numbers or just as a database of interesting stuff they can throw in.

 

Everyone happy.  Woot.

[Lucius]

 

First I want to thank everyone for contributing, I'm glad I got such a response. A lot of interesting things have been said, and I'm hoping to come back and address some of it. I haven't been in the thread because lately I haven't felt I had the time or energy to do it justice. But today I thought I'd better show up before everyone thinks I'd just abandoned the topic.

 

 

I don't think it simplifies the system, myself. I think it... umm... complicates it quite a bit. But it's definitely an interesting idea with potential interesting applications.

Well, if you think I'm talking about something like this:

 

Susceptibilities sounds to me like the most obvious example of a Complication/Disadvantage as a "negative Power" that Lucius started off the thread with. Instead of Susceptibility: 3d6 from Magnetic Fields, you'd have something like Blast 3d6, NND, Trigger: Magnetic Fields, Negative Power.  That last (Negative Power) would probably be the Modifier that does the deed, so to speak, and probably includes things like User Does Not Control Power and Power Only Affects User.  A Vulnerability could easily be done this way as well:  Vulnerability, 2x STUN from Fire, becomes Blast 12d6, NND, Trigger: When Hit By Fire Attacks, Only To Double Stun Of Incoming Attack, Negative Power.  

 

Physical Complication:  Missing An Arm could be Extra Limbs: Arm, Negative Power.  No Legs would be almost the same, plus selling off all of your base Running.  

 

Edit:  Maybe two different Negative Power Modifiers:  Lack, which means you're missing whatever the thing is, and Effect, which means whatever the thing is affects you under certain conditions.

Then yes, it sure does look like it's complicating things. But this isn't my idea, it's yours. Mind you, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it is not what I had in mind.

 

I'm not clear on how "Negative Powers" are different from Disadvantages or Complications except named differently and somewhat more complicated in construction or how it simplifies the system?

Well, it eliminates one whole section of the character sheet - Complications.

 

Negative Powers would go in the Powers section of the character sheet. They would differ from Complications in two other important respects:

 

1. They would have to actually be worth the points.

 

2. They always count. So if you actually have -100 pts worth of Negative Powers (which I consider unlikely in view of that "have to actually be worth the points" rule I just articulated, but I CAN see it happening)you get 100 pts to spend on other assets for the character, not just 75.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary at one end thinks that to "eliminate Complications" sure sounds like it means to simplify, but the other end isn't convinced.

[phoenix240]

First I want to thank everyone for contributing, I'm glad I got such a response. A lot of interesting things have been said, and I'm hoping to come back and address some of it. I haven't been in the thread because lately I haven't felt I had the time or energy to do it justice. But today I thought I'd better show up before everyone thinks I'd just abandoned the topic.

 

 

 

Well, if you think I'm talking about something like this:

 

 

Then yes, it sure does look like it's complicating things. But this isn't my idea, it's yours. Mind you, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it is not what I had in mind.

 

 

Well, it eliminates one whole section of the character sheet - Complications.

 

Negative Powers would go in the Powers section of the character sheet. They would differ from Complications in two other important respects:

 

1. They would have to actually be worth the points.

 

2. They always count. So if you actually have -100 pts worth of Negative Powers (which I consider unlikely in view of that "have to actually be worth the points" rule I just articulated, but I CAN see it happening)you get 100 pts to spend on other assets for the character, not just 75.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary at one end thinks that to "eliminate Complications" sure sounds like it means to simplify, but the other end isn't convinced.

 

I don't see how Disadvantages aren't "worth the points". There may not be a direct one for one mathematical correlation between them and Powers but when you used properly they're certainly worth it (IMO, of course). Making an interesting and fun character isn't balancing an equation, again, IMO.

 

And thought it eliminates a section of the character sheet its one that isn't that complex to begin with and replaces it with constructions that seems more intricate and less intuitive than Disadvantages. That might be a matter familiarity but I honestly think if that had been the structure from the beginning that I wouldn't have liked it as much as the relatively simple Disadvantage/Complication structure.

 

But as i said earlier. Hero System is a toolkit foremost. I hope you're able to come up with something that better suits you and your game's needs.

[Lucius]

I'm still mulling over what everyone has said, but I think I need to get clear about one thing before we go any further.

 

Here is an example of something I mean when I say Negative Power:

 

Afflicted by Iron:  (Total: -50 Active Cost, -50 Real Cost) Susceptibility: touched by ferrous metal 1d6 damage per Phase (Common) (-20 Active Points) (Real Cost: -20) <b>plus</b> Vulnerability: 2X STUN iron or steel weapons (very common) (-30 Active Points) (Real Cost: -30)

 

In other words, I don't see any need for the kind of complicated construction proposed above, like:

 

"Instead of Susceptibility: 3d6 from Magnetic Fields, you'd have something like Blast 3d6, NND, Trigger: Magnetic Fields, Negative Power.  That last (Negative Power) would probably be the Modifier that does the deed, so to speak, and probably includes things like User Does Not Control Power and Power Only Affects User.  A Vulnerability could easily be done this way as well:  Vulnerability, 2x STUN from Fire, becomes Blast 12d6, NND, Trigger: When Hit By Fire Attacks, Only To Double Stun Of Incoming Attack, Negative Power. " 

 

I don't have a problem with complexity that serves some purpose, but I have to admit I don't see the purpose of this complexity when you can simply say "Vulnerability: 2XSTUN from chosen attack" like we've always done. I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel, just improve upon it.

 

 

On the other hand, one of the ideas I'm mulling over is the point some of you have made about Susceptibility and Vulnerability sometimes being more like "plot points" then real Disadvantages because they come up so rarely.

 

 

 

Now, here's an example that is slightly more complex:

 

-7 He's showing initiative, unfortunately:  2d6 Unluck (-10 Active Points); Conditional Power Only if ignoring good advice or a reasonable order (-1/2)

 

This was something I put on a character in response to his request "don't make me the tactician" and he loved it. it suits either a character who is good at following orders (giving the player a good reason to stick to someone else's plan) or a "loose cannon" that goes his own way anyway, despite the fact it often doesn't work out. I also gave the character this 1 pt Power

 

1 " I say we charge!" "Yeah? Then we should probably stay right here":  (Anti-)Tactics 10-, Usable Simultaneously (all targets standing within 10 meters of Grantor; +1/2), Grantor can only grant the power to others, Recipient must remain close to Grantor (3 Active Points); No Conscious Control (Only Effects cannot be controlled; -1)

The character NEVER has a good tactical plan, but on a roll of 10 or less might come up with an idea that is perversely useful - if only by deciding that the best thing to do is the opposite of what the character suggests.

 

That's not a Negative Power obviously, and it does have SOME possible use (thus costing 1 pt) - but only to another character.

 

 

I have some more examples, but the fact is, I'm still figuring this out as I go along. I'm both trying to spread what I think is a good idea and a good direction for the system to go in, and trying to find out what other useful ideas are out there and what other people can add to what I have thought of on my own.

 

And it looks like I need to look into FATE

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

House of the Palindromedary

[Tasha]

Ditto.

 

Back to the original topic of the thread. Susceptibilities sounds to me like the most obvious example of a Complication/Disadvantage as a "negative Power" that Lucius started off the thread with. Instead of Susceptibility: 3d6 from Magnetic Fields, you'd have something like Blast 3d6, NND, Trigger: Magnetic Fields, Negative Power.  That last (Negative Power) would probably be the Modifier that does the deed, so to speak, and probably includes things like User Does Not Control Power and Power Only Affects User.  A Vulnerability could easily be done this way as well:  Vulnerability, 2x STUN from Fire, becomes Blast 12d6, NND, Trigger: When Hit By Fire Attacks, Only To Double Stun Of Incoming Attack, Negative Power.  

 

Physical Complication:  Missing An Arm could be Extra Limbs: Arm, Negative Power.  No Legs would be almost the same, plus selling off all of your base Running.  

 

Edit:  Maybe two different Negative Power Modifiers:  Lack, which means you're missing whatever the thing is, and Effect, which means whatever the thing is affects you under certain conditions.  

Since first edition Fantasy Hero and the First large Package Deals. I have often wondered if the system was looking at Disads/Complications all wrong. I DO hate how Lowering Stats, buying off Running, Senses etc are treated as "free disads" ie they lower the cost of your character, but Disads were something that added points to the character. Mathmatically they seem to do the same thing, but it gets weird when you have a package deal with sells off stats and other things, but also comes with Disads. The sell off items are only limited by what you want to sell off. Disads are limited by Campaign limits. This is the ONLY reason that I have any problem with Disads.

 

I am all for games that give incentives for Players to take weaknesses for their characters. In my huge experience, Players don't want to take ANY thing that will weaken their character. So if you don't give them an incentive to do so, they won't. I agree that in Previous editions of Hero (pre 6e) Players were asked to buy way too many Disadvantages. I do like that in 6e the number of Complications asked for is MUCH lower (Probably a bit too low, YMMV). I know that asking for 50-75 pts of Disads for a 400-500pt PC isn't that much to ask for. The Reason that the PC gets those extra points is because they are adding something to the campaign. They are helping me to write adventures for them. They are telling me who the important NPC's are for them (Villain, DNPC, and NPC alike). They are even asking me for adventures that challenge their PC's morals (ie adventures that trip their Psych Limits) and their Physical Challenges (ie Very heavy, blind etc). These are all things that I may not have thought about myself or even if I did they probably wouldn't take that form.

 

The Roleplay DNA podcast Talks about disads and Hero points/Bennies and how they find them to be an invaluable aid to their Roleplaying and Worldbuilding as a whole.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-002-yippee-ki-yay/id515837046?i=124790863&mt=2

or here

http://p5productions.com/roleplaydna/2012/05/01/episode-002-yippee-ki-yay-2/