No Complications Please - Simplifying Hero

[Jas]

Something about the "anti-power" Complications - many of them are actually the least-useful to the GM. You're a being of fire, and therefore take double damage from cold and water powers. That sucks, and I may decide that there need to be bad guys who can take advantage of that. But it doesn't really do much for your character at all. Even a hunted gives the GM more to work with than a vulnerability or susceptibility. Unluck bridges the gap a bit, but I'd almost rather you had Enraged or a Psych Lim that tells me something interesting about your psyche than just a mechanical hook to beating you down easier.

[Chris Goodwin]

Lucius, in your OP when you wrote this:  

 

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.

 

(Emphasis mine.)  I have to admit I thought you were looking at the point scales of Powers and Complications, and trying to get them to match.   So when I get to this part...

 

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)

 

...

 

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

 

 

There's a disconnect for me.  It seems to me that what you're doing is writing the Complications down in a different place on the sheet, and allowing them to have Advantages and Limitations applied.  It doesn't look to me like any of this solves what I thought of as the problems you mentioned in your OP.  

 

I'm enthusiastically allowing for the option that I've misread your OP, and I'm hoping to see some more examples of what you're talking about.

[rstehwien]

I don't have any problem with Disadvantages/Complications per se.  I thought in previous versions you ended up needing to buy too many and I found that the "complications already added in" method made things more complicated than Base+Disadvantages.  Now its "Here is your total, but if you don't take all the complications you need to subtract ..." seems a backwards and convoluted path to the same point.  But I really do like the lower number of points in complications; people aren't walking bags of neurosis with strange weaknesses and enemies.

 

All that said, I really like the option on 6eV1 pg 415 where you just have a total number of points and when your complications come up you get new HAP (heroic action points).  Makes it behave somewhat like FATE Aspects in that they are a temporary reward when it occurs, so players want it to come up, rather than a permanent award and they often don't want them to come up.

 

Now only if some power limitations were treated like that (things like focus which are a situational modifier that the GM must make happen and some players whine about).

[Tasha]

I don't have any problem with Disadvantages/Complications per se.  I thought in previous versions you ended up needing to buy too many and I found that the "complications already added in" method made things more complicated than Base+Disadvantages.  Now its "Here is your total, but if you don't take all the complications you need to subtract ..." seems a backwards and convoluted path to the same point.  But I really do like the lower number of points in complications; people aren't walking bags of neurosis with strange weaknesses and enemies.

 

All that said, I really like the option on 6eV1 pg 415 where you just have a total number of points and when your complications come up you get new HAP (heroic action points).  Makes it behave somewhat like FATE Aspects in that they are a temporary reward when it occurs, so players want it to come up, rather than a permanent award and they often don't want them to come up.

 

Now only if some power limitations were treated like that (things like focus which are a situational modifier that the GM must make happen and some players whine about).

 

It's closer to the format that Savage Worlds takes. Where they pretty much assume that you will take your 2 minor and 1 major.

 

While it's weird from the point of view of taking less Complications. It does make things much easier when GM's think of characters as X number of power points (ie a 150pt FH character and not a 100base +50 Complications character, Or a 400 pt character and not a 350base points +50 Complications). It also reinforces the idea that taking Complications is expected.

[Vondy]

I use a heroic action point based system for complications rather than point values. If I step on a complication in a scenario the character gets an HAP. I also give them for the usual swath of HAP reasons. On occasion I've allowed players to burn an HAP to avoid complications kicking in.

[Lucius]

Lucius, in your OP when you wrote this:  

 

 

(Emphasis mine.)  I have to admit I thought you were looking at the point scales of Powers and Complications, and trying to get them to match.   So when I get to this part...

 

 

There's a disconnect for me.  It seems to me that what you're doing is writing the Complications down in a different place on the sheet, and allowing them to have Advantages and Limitations applied.  It doesn't look to me like any of this solves what I thought of as the problems you mentioned in your OP.  

 

I'm enthusiastically allowing for the option that I've misread your OP, and I'm hoping to see some more examples of what you're talking about.

Obviously, I'm not expressing myself well.

 

Yes, you understood my original post. No, I'm not JUST talking about moving where Complications are recorded and allowing Advantages and Limitations for them, although that's part of what I'm doing.

 

I see Unluck in particular as an almost "Ideal" version of a Negative Power, the obvious equal and opposite to Luck. I also see Vulnerability and Susceptibility as being generally "worth their points" - but my mind could be changed on that, especially as they've been referred to as "Campaign Disadvantages" that may seldom come up.

 

I brought out those examples because I wanted to make it plain that what I WASN'T talking about was the kind of complex Power builds you had proposed. But I don't mean to imply that any given Complication would be acceptable to me as a Negative Power just by moving where it is on the sheet.

 

Let me take the opposite extreme example - Style Disadvantage, the "Distinctive Looks" of a given martial arts discipline. I've never seen that as anything but "free points" that I am munchkin enough to happily take when available, but even I feel a little guilty about it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary likes the idea of Styleless Advantage instead

[Lucius]

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

That is the problem.

 

I don't want players to get more points, but I do want them to be able to move points around.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

moving palindromedaries around

[Greywind]

Let me take the opposite extreme example - Style Disadvantage, the "Distinctive Looks" of a given martial arts discipline. I've never seen that as anything but "free points" that I am munchkin enough to happily take when available, but even I feel a little guilty about it.

 

Then you've never run into an adversary that could take advantage of it.

[Tasha]

It's up to each GM to decide how they are going to enforce or take advantage of a Character's Complications. I like that they give the PC extra resources to play with. This gives them a reason to actually take them. Without the points incentive, most powergamers would take nothing that could be a weakness for their character.

 

If a Player takes a Style Disadvantage, they are telling me that they want to face Opponents that can take advantage of their easy to recognize Style. If I the GM doesn't want to deal with it, it is up to me to say "No sorry, in this kind of campaign the MA style Disadvantage doesn't fit into the campaign. Please choose another Complication to replace it"

 

It's not up to the rules to tell anyone how to play the game. It's there to give a basic foundation for groups to build adventures and fun on top of. IF a particular group basically ignores Complications, it's not up to you or me to tell them they are having "Stupid bad unfun".

[drunkonduty]

I'm pro-complications. Although, after reading through this thread I am now of the opinion that 150 points (I'm still in 5th ed.) of them is too many and I think I'll change over to more base points, fewer disads.

 

The way I always explain disads to new players is: "You give me some fun stuff to work with and you get more points for your character." I also explain that the disads they pick should reflect things they want to interact with in the game. "Things" being stylistic or plot based or character types or whatever.

 

That disads aren't balanced vis-à-vis powers... I don't  care. They are different things. If you really want to try to make them scale together keep in mind that only the most crippling of complications is going to come up as often as a character's Energy Blast gets used. So fewer points for them seems fair to me.

 

Re. selling back stats (etc.) I disallow it. A friend of mine long ago showed me how to create an infinite point loop by selling back STR (this was 4th ed.) Have banned it ever since. Now I agree that sometimes a player genuinely wants to sell back a stat because it reflects their an important part of their character concept. Like maybe a not so bright brick or a sickly person with mind powers. I would allow it only on a case by case basis. 

 

For, let's call them "every person abilities" such as sight: If a player really wants to play someone who is blind (really blind, not Matt Murdock "blind") they can get the 25 points for a Total, All the Time Physical Disad. For Matt burdock blind... I'd allow them to simply swap the Sense Group; charging them some points (5, 10 maybe) if the sense group they swapped to was much less likely to get Flashed/Darknessed or had other advantages. I might also allow a small (5 pts?) disad for being colour blind and other drawbacks of not being sensitive to visible light waves. If I was at home I'd muck about on Hero Designer and see what sort of Enhanced Senses I could build and get more accurate points values.

 

Hm, just riffing but... what if all stats started at 0? Want to be White Death, The Turburculoid Poet? No probs. Just don't spend so many points on your physical stats. No need for a complication/disad - having barely enough STR to lift yourself up is disad enough. Yes characters would require a lot more points (immmm, 147 points in 5th ed if I counted right) just to come out at the same level.

 

cheers all.

[Ninja-Bear]

Drunkonduty I believe that in fifth they already lowered disadvantage points. I swear that its 150 base points-100 disadvatage points.

[Greywind]

For low powered. Standard is 200/150.

[Cinniuint]

My early core group liked disads. Peripheral players and everyone since hated them. Have played with various solutions to the problem in my mind, and I do like the HAP idea. Never actually tried anything.

 

I also very much like the Amber Diceless idea of player contributions. Get points for helping the game somehow. Hosting the game, keeping a campaign log, drawing maps to GM specification, and my personal favorite: keeping a character diary. Character points for things not truly in the game. And most groups have that one player who has no time for homework because they have a good job. They often find the simplest contribution is buying munchies for each game session.

 

I would like to see these in hero system. A diary might be worth 20-25 points, and if the player didn't make an entry for this session (of in game or out of game events in the character's life) then they get that many points of unluck for this session.

[Scott Baker]

I also very much like the Amber Diceless idea of player contributions. Get points for helping the game somehow. Hosting the game, keeping a campaign log, drawing maps to GM specification, and my personal favorite: keeping a character diary. Character points for things not truly in the game. And most groups have that one player who has no time for homework because they have a good job. They often find the simplest contribution is buying munchies for each game session.

 

I've been giving out bonus XP for almost 25 years for contributions. I started with a secret player vote for each session where I asked them to vote for the best player that session; highest vote count got an extra XP. The campaign I'm currently in also gives out bonuses for extra work put into the game.

[Aversill]

In my opinion, complications should enter the game, but don't, because you load up on less problematic complications. 

 

Recently my players were fighting a demon and they pulled out a holy symbol and I realized that I'd hit my needed complications before buying susceptibility to holy symbols.  I changed it on the spot because it made sense, but during character creation process, it's a problem.  And it never comes up for players who stay away from vulnerability like its...a vulnerability.  I can hit my points with psych complications and social complications, why would I go to vulnerability.

 

Also, that's another point, who's responsible for the vulnerability.  If I buy a magnetic attack, should I buy extra dice against metal or should you buy vulnerability, and what if, by mistake, we do both...or neither. 

 

In my mechwarrior games, I finally settled on junkloads of side effects, which makes sense.  Shoot off a Long Range Missile Rack in the middle of a city and you're likely to pick up a temporary Social Complication (Starting a War!).  Shoot off a bunch of particle cannons and there's a chance that the wires in your other equipment might fuze from the heat.  I like the complication system because it lets me know what that should be worth, and it simplifies that process.

 

As for the hunteds, social complications, distinctive features, things like that... enh.  They're campaign stuff.  It's a way for my players to say, I really want there to be a pirate theme to your adventures every third one.  I like the players having that capacity for input.  I'm not sure I value it as a balancing system.  Even in the old days when it was a roll, I don't think anyone ever did the roll.  Can you imagine if everyone's 11 or less hunted showed up at the same time?  And why wouldn't they attack each other?

[Cinniuint]

They wouldn't attack each other because if they all showed up at the same time, they probably got together in advance and planned it that way

[Greywind]

Just because the roll was made doesn't mean that the hunted would show. It means that the hunted was doing something where the character was involved.

[Lucius]

My early core group liked disads. Peripheral players and everyone since hated them. Have played with various solutions to the problem in my mind, and I do like the HAP idea. Never actually tried anything.

 

I also very much like the Amber Diceless idea of player contributions. Get points for helping the game somehow. Hosting the game, keeping a campaign log, drawing maps to GM specification, and my personal favorite: keeping a character diary. Character points for things not truly in the game. And most groups have that one player who has no time for homework because they have a good job. They often find the simplest contribution is buying munchies for each game session.

 

I would like to see these in hero system. A diary might be worth 20-25 points, and if the player didn't make an entry for this session (of in game or out of game events in the character's life) then they get that many points of unluck for this session.

 

Now, that's interesting. I've taken to using Unluck, Luck, and Overall Level bonuses to encourage certain behavior, but

1. These are bought as Powers (or Negative Powers) and

2. They're tied to in-character behaviors, not player behaviors.

 

I was also starting to use a system whereby, whenever I made a character take an Unluck roll, they got a token that they would have to give up for the next Luck roll or, if I ask for an Unluck roll before their next Luck roll, they can show to demand an immediate Luck roll along with the Unluck. That's to keep ME from leaning on the Unluck too much, but I could also try using the "Luck chips" as a reward for other things...

 

As for some players loving Disads and other hating them, one of the things I'm striving for is a system in which players don't feel obliged to take more than they want because otherwise they're "too weak" nor find themselves taking on lots because it fits the character concept but then not getting full credit because they hit the "cap."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks I should get some coins specially made for tokens, with a palindromedary depicted on them

[Lucius]

In my opinion, complications should enter the game, but don't, because you load up on less problematic complications.

 

Recently my players were fighting a demon and they pulled out a holy symbol and I realized that I'd hit my needed complications before buying susceptibility to holy symbols. I changed it on the spot because it made sense, but during character creation process, it's a problem. And it never comes up for players who stay away from vulnerability like its...a vulnerability. I can hit my points with psych complications and social complications, why would I go to vulnerability.

And at the risk of seeming to beat my point into the ground, that's another prong of what I've been saying - some Complications are "more problematic" than others.

 

Until I started making it mandatory, players would avoid Unluck like, well, like the plague. (I have, by the way, noticed this regardless of who was running, so it can't just be that I personally am not trusted with the Unluck dice. on the other hand, I've never shied away from taking Unluck if I felt I needed to squeeze out 10 more points to get everything good I wanted for the character - though I'd often buy it off with the first 10 pts of XP)

 

Also, that's another point, who's responsible for the vulnerability. If I buy a magnetic attack, should I buy extra dice against metal or should you buy vulnerability, and what if, by mistake, we do both...or neither.

In that specific case, I'd say the Power should have the extra dice with Limitation - because not everything made of metal is bought with points. Just as if there's a Detect Gold Power, someone carrying a bag of gold will set it off, and does not have buy "Distinctive Features: has gold." Nor, in my opinion, should a mutant with no visible physical mutation have "Distinctive Features: mutant" before a Detect Mutant Power would detect them as such.

 

On the other hand, I would give the demon a Susceptibility or Vulnerability to "Holy" attacks if that were to be part of the campaign.

 

The fact that every single Hero campaign is going to need at least a few such judgment calls is a good thing or bad thing depending on how much you like rules-tinkering.

 

In my mechwarrior games, I finally settled on junkloads of side effects, which makes sense. Shoot off a Long Range Missile Rack in the middle of a city and you're likely to pick up a temporary Social Complication (Starting a War!). Shoot off a bunch of particle cannons and there's a chance that the wires in your other equipment might fuze from the heat. I like the complication system because it lets me know what that should be worth, and it simplifies that process.

I'm not sure if you're saying the same thing I'm about to say, but I do tend to favor using Side Effects instead of Complications - for example, rather than a Susceptibility to certain Mental Powers, I put a Side Effect on Mental Defense that triggers when those Powers penetrate that defense. That also means that if the character WANTS mental contact they can voluntarily lower the defense. Or if you don't want that to be possible, that's an Always On Limitation.

 

As for the hunteds, social complications, distinctive features, things like that... enh. They're campaign stuff. It's a way for my players to say, I really want there to be a pirate theme to your adventures every third one. I like the players having that capacity for input. I'm not sure I value it as a balancing system.

I think I agree that it's good for players to have that input. I obviously agree it's not so good for balance, the way it is now.

 

I think asking players what they want to see may be a better way to solicit input.

 

Even in the old days when it was a roll, I don't think anyone ever did the roll. Can you imagine if everyone's 11 or less hunted showed up at the same time? And why wouldn't they attack each other?

I don't think most people interpreted it as "the hunted shows up and attacks." As I once observed in another thread, if the character even does something like take precautions against being followed or attacked, then even if the hunted didn't do a thing that time, the Complication still took effect because it was influencing the character's behavior.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Asking the palindromedary if it wants to pay to commission the minting of those coins

[Greywind]

Most players don't take Unluck because they don't want "random" GM interference with their actions. And those that take it, like you, buy it off first.

[Tasha]

Most players don't take Unluck because they don't want "random" GM interference with their actions. And those that take it, like you, buy it off first.

I think the real problem with both Luck and Unluck is that those disads take way from player agency with their character. ie the GM controls what happens when you roll the dice. The rules for handling luck are kind of squishy. Some GM's might take 1 pip of unluck and drop a building on the PC, and others might have the PC be a bit clumsy. It's very subjective and as such it's not very attractive to Players.

 

I see players take Susceptabilites and Vulnerabilities (in Champions) all of the time. Thereby Opening huge holes in the PC's defenses. I think that players feel like they have more control over those disads.

[Vondy]

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.

 

While I prefer to use complications as a HAP mechanism rather than a source of character points, I think dropping the number of complication points needed to get the the "starting baseline" is a good idea. One of the primary objections people had was that players often ended up tacking on more complications than a given concept needed, or so many that the GM had to make a choice: simply ignore some complications altogether or end up with a disjointed and disrupted game due to bringing various characters disparate disads into play session after session after session. In my book, less is more with complications -- a few good complications make a character. A lot of them often break the character and the game.

[Vondy]

I think asking players what they want to see may be a better way to solicit input.

 

 

You mean, actually engaging in straight talk instead of using the system as a passive aggressive form of narrative leverage?

[Vondy]

I think the real problem with both Luck and Unluck is that those disads take way from player agency with their character. ie the GM controls what happens when you roll the dice. The rules for handling luck are kind of squishy. Some GM's might take 1 pip of unluck and drop a building on the PC, and others might have the PC be a bit clumsy. It's very subjective and as such it's not very attractive to Players.

 

I tend to agree players are a bit paranoid, and that its not always unreasonable. The ambiguous nature of luck and unluck requires both trust and good judgement. Some gamemasters abuse the system or misinterpret the system as having absolutist outcomes that are more extreme than otherwise warranted. I think luck / unluck is a great way to add flavor and uncertainty (both ways) to scenarios, but it takes a light touch and a certain amount of creative insight to do it properly.

[Balabanto]

I love Complications. Complications both define a character and create a fun backdrop for things. It can also introduce things that can bring about fascinating roleplaying between player characters.