Templates/Packages and Complications

[Doc Democracy]

Sounds to me that @Sketchpad is saying that taking the template complications drives story and the player gets a bit extra GM-love/spotlight time, which is decent recompense for the complications.

 

If complications at a table are seenas story hooks rather than "disadvantages" then I can see it working.

[Sketchpad]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

Sounds to me that @Sketchpad is saying that taking the template complications drives story and the player gets a bit extra GM-love/spotlight time, which is decent recompense for the complications.

 

If complications at a table are seen as story hooks rather than "disadvantages" then I can see it working.

 

Thank you, Doc D. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Even back in the older days of Hero, I've always seen Disads/Complications as ways to tell a story with your character. Have a Code vs. Killing? Let's explore that by confronting a character like The Punisher. Have a Hunted by Viper? Okay, so you find an old Viper lab that has some info on you. Should they be a problem at times? Of course. When you have a x2 Vulnerability to Corgis, expect an occasional Corgi to show up and slobber on you. But having something like Subject to Orders? There should be other, more defining things for a character to take in their Complications. This is why I'm also using Quirks, so characters can be defined better. 

[Doc Democracy]

11 minutes ago, Sketchpad said:

When you have a x2 Vulnerability to Corgis, expect an occasional Corgi to show up and slobber on you.

How did you know my wife had a corgi??

 

[Jason Reid]

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

Even back in the older days of Hero, I've always seen Disads/Complications as ways to tell a story with your character.

 

I wager that lot of us have had, "If it doesn't limit you, it's not worth any points" drilled pretty deep into our core at this point. You can of course use limits as a storytelling vehicle, but for a lot of folks, they are limits first and vehicles second.

 

So the notion that we would tack on extra limits to a character without some sort of compensation is at odds with our approach to the system.

 

Extra story hooks? Sure, tacking something like that onto a Package would work fine. I just probably wouldn't treat them the same as I treated actual stereotypical complications.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

Thank you, Doc D. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Even back in the older days of Hero, I've always seen Disads/Complications as ways to tell a story with your character. Have a Code vs. Killing? Let's explore that by confronting a character like The Punisher. Have a Hunted by Viper? Okay, so you find an old Viper lab that has some info on you. Should they be a problem at times? Of course. When you have a x2 Vulnerability to Corgis, expect an occasional Corgi to show up and slobber on you. But having something like Subject to Orders? There should be other, more defining things for a character to take in their Complications. This is why I'm also using Quirks, so characters can be defined better. 

Right and no one I think is arguing against that. The point that is though is there becomes a practical amount that a group can have and still be feasible for what you want to do. So I think you should have a total amount of Complications. Let the player decide if they want to swap out or modify  Template Complications. Going back to Subject to Orders, perhaps the plater really doesn’t like this Complication but agrees to maybe a 5 pt version. That I think is acceptable..

[Doc Democracy]

55 minutes ago, Jason Reid said:

You can of course use limits as a storytelling vehicle, but for a lot of folks, they are limits first and vehicles second.

 

That is why both the GM and players need to be on the same page, and there needs to be trust between them.

 

Sounds like Sketchpad's group are on that page, the players trust him to use the complications to tell a better story and not to screw them over.  It might not work in my group, or yours, but there is no BadWrongFun here.  If players see their character gets more love through having more complications, the player gets a fraction more spotlight, then there is no need for a point balancing exercise.

[dmjalund]

26 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

If players see their character gets more love through having more complications, the player gets a fraction more spotlight, then there is no need for a point balancing exercise.

i could see it as weighing balance between complications. a low cost complication only occasionally gets highlighted. a high cost complication gets highlighted more often.

[Sketchpad]

16 hours ago, Jason Reid said:

I wager that lot of us have had, "If it doesn't limit you, it's not worth any points" drilled pretty deep into our core at this point. You can of course use limits as a storytelling vehicle, but for a lot of folks, they are limits first and vehicles second.

 

So the notion that we would tack on extra limits to a character without some sort of compensation is at odds with our approach to the system.

 

Extra story hooks? Sure, tacking something like that onto a Package would work fine. I just probably wouldn't treat them the same as I treated actual stereotypical complications.

 

Coming from older editions, I completely agree. And while I cut my teeth on Champions/Hero back in the early '80s, I started viewing Disads differently in 4th, which has educated my opinions in 6th. I guess a big question I have is where is the compensation in 6th ed Complications? What do players get beyond story for them? Yes, they're "required," but the points no longer reflect spending points anymore. I think this is where I have some disconnect. 

 

16 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Right and no one I think is arguing against that. The point that is though is there becomes a practical amount that a group can have and still be feasible for what you want to do. So I think you should have a total amount of Complications. Let the player decide if they want to swap out or modify  Template Complications. Going back to Subject to Orders, perhaps the plater really doesn’t like this Complication but agrees to maybe a 5 pt version. That I think is acceptable..

 

Sure, I get that. This goes to concept and how it interacts with the Template chosen. In some cases, that 5 pt. version may not be feasible depending on campaign, organization, or even the character itself.  

 

14 hours ago, dmjalund said:

i could see it as weighing balance between complications. a low cost complication only occasionally gets highlighted. a high cost complication gets highlighted more often.

 

Exactly. I've always seen the intentions of Complications/Disads in this light. Hunteds are a great example of this, particularly when looking at frequency. The higher pt. values typically indicated that the Hunted showed up more often. The same could be said about someone with a Psych Lim at Total, or a DNPC that showed up very frequently and was less than competent. 

 

15 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

That is why both the GM and players need to be on the same page, and there needs to be trust between them.

 

Sounds like Sketchpad's group are on that page, the players trust him to use the complications to tell a better story and not to screw them over.  It might not work in my group, or yours, but there is no BadWrongFun here.  If players see their character gets more love through having more complications, the player gets a fraction more spotlight, then there is no need for a point balancing exercise.

 

Absolutely, Doc. In my case, I'm upfront with my players and often type up a small 6-8 page booklet that gives the house rules, packages, standard gear, etc. I always try and find a way to spotlight characters from session to session, and Complications work as a great vehicle for that. 

 

On the BadWrongFun part, I really wish that others would understand that at times. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Sketchpad

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Sketchpad said:

Coming from older editions, I completely agree. And while I cut my teeth on Champions/Hero back in the early '80s, I started viewing Disads differently in 4th, which has educated my opinions in 6th. I guess a big question I have is where is the compensation in 6th ed Complications? What do players get beyond story for them? Yes, they're "required," but the points no longer reflect spending points anymore. I think this is where I have some disconnect.

 

The only real difference is nomenclature.  Pre-6e, we might say characters had 100 points + up to 75 points in DisadPlications (thanks to @Duke Bushido for that term).  In 6e, the character instead has 75 points of DisadPlications and 175 points.  The character can give up some of those points to reduce the required DisadPlications.  I rarely saw players take less than the maximum in 5e, nor do they tend to buy down complications in 6e.

 

I typically describe two facets of DisadPlications. The  more often issues arise, the greater the points.  The greater the impact when it does arise, the greater the points.  A minor but frequent inconvenience might have the same value as a rare but devastating DisadPlication.

[Duke Bushido]

Spot on, Hugh, as usual, but I would like to point out that DisadPlications in 6e don't need to be as numerous  are worth twice as much as they were before.  If memory serves, that is-- let us remember I have read the 6e books but a single time, and probabky won't re-read them again.

 

 

If I recall correctly though, a player who opts to not take his last fifteen point DisadPlication also forfeits 15 of his "freebie" points-- or am I remembering that wrong?  I could be wrong;  it has been a couple of years, and I havent seen it discussed in-depth anywhere, so maybe it is a false memory (why do we put so much credence on the  demonstrably unreliable memory of eye witnesses?).

 

300 points plus 75 in DisadPlications minus an amount of free points equal to (75-[your DisadPlication total]) is a bizarrely long-handed way of saying 150 pts plus 150 pts of DisadPlications, oh, and all Disaplications are worth double their listed value.

 

And that, for the record, is what has me wondering if this is a false memory, simply because it is such a bizarrely long-winded work around for doubling the points values and halving the stated starting points, which takes way less effort to explain and is way easier to comprehend.

 

 

So...  False memory?  Tell ne if it is a false memory.  Please dont make me read all those books again....

 

 

[Chris Goodwin]

Not a false memory.  That's how it works.  Same rule, backwards statement. 

 

I believe though that in the Completes, they were changed from that to GM's option-ish? 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I always felt that the "disads give you points to build with" feature was an elegant Hero thing like figured characteristics.  Now I can reluctantly see the value of removing figured from the characteristics but I cannot figure out why to restate things so that complications are just... well, pretty much optional now, they don't give you any points.

[LoneWolf]

Really not much has changed about disadvantages except the number of complications you need to take.   Every of matching complications you do not take reduces the points you get.  The standard superhero is 400 points and needs 75 points in matching complications.   So, if you only take 50 points of complications for your standard superhero you get 375 points to build the character.  If you take more than the required amount you don’t get any extra points.    All they really did is change it from adding points for disadvantages, to subtracting points for not having complications.  The end result is identical.  What they did was recognize that almost all starting characters took the maximum allowed disadvantages. 

 

Complications under 6^th edition are not worth more points than the disadvantages of the earlier editions.  A Psychological complication/disadvantage that occurs very frequently with a total commitment is worth 25 points in both systems.   They actually cut the number of points of complications you need to take in 6^th edition but left the point values basically the same.

 

They did actually increase the value starting characters get.  In 5^th edition the standard superhero was 350 points, in 6^th edition it is 400.   The extra 50 points was likely to cover the increased cost of the figured stats.  

[Doc Democracy]

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

So...  False memory?  Tell ne if it is a false memory.  Please dont make me read all those books again....

 

It is a bit of a false memory.  You get a chunk more points to build for free.  The could have said, you get 325 points to build a character and an extra point for every point of complication you take upto 400.  Because the value caps wt 75 points.

 

I reckon the way they present it means the rules emphasise that a 400 point character with 75 points of complicationsis normal.  Pitching it the other way suggests that a 325 point character is normal but you can get more power by compromising your character.

 

I think it addresses the issue that players far enough along the gamist path produced severely twisted characters to squeeze out increased points for their characters.  It puts a RAW thing for GMs to say, it is normal for your PC's life to be complicated; it is normal for these things to come into gameplay; it is something to give good consideration to, if your character is going to be tied into this game.

 

I actually think the GM should probably offer a 25 point campaign discount, complications that will be relevant to the ongoing campaign, to be revealed during play.  A way of ensuring all the players are tied into the ongoing campaign as well as having complications of their own - and that will change, potentially by adventure arc.

 

Doc

[Ninja-Bear]

@Doc Democracy you’re correct. What Aaron Allston points out is that by the Rules, 5th in this case. Hero system does not limit the amount of Disadvantages a character can take. The GM can impose Campaign limits and the book also suggest limits but it isn’t hard coded. Now it seems that with 6th, it is.

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Spot on, Hugh, as usual, but I would like to point out that DisadPlications in 6e don't need to be as numerous  are worth twice as much as they were before.  If memory serves, that is-- let us remember I have read the 6e books but a single time, and probabky won't re-read them again.

 

 

If I recall correctly though, a player who opts to not take his last fifteen point DisadPlication also forfeits 15 of his "freebie" points-- or am I remembering that wrong?  I could be wrong;  it has been a couple of years, and I havent seen it discussed in-depth anywhere, so maybe it is a false memory (why do we put so much credence on the  demonstrably unreliable memory of eye witnesses?).

 

300 points plus 75 in DisadPlications minus an amount of free points equal to (75-[your DisadPlication total]) is a bizarrely long-handed way of saying 150 pts plus 150 pts of DisadPlications, oh, and all Disaplications are worth double their listed value.

 

And that, for the record, is what has me wondering if this is a false memory, simply because it is such a bizarrely long-winded work around for doubling the points values and halving the stated starting points, which takes way less effort to explain and is way easier to comprehend.

 

 

So...  False memory?  Tell ne if it is a false memory.  Please dont make me read all those books again....

 

As you could play with no DisadPlications and only lose 75 points, they are not worth more.  You simply take less, and therefore only the ones core to the character.  That was a deliberate design change from Steve Long.

[Duke Bushido]

Thank you, gentlemen.

 

Quick clarification request:

 

Please confirm a couple of things for me:

 

Per 6e, your starting points are "400 it's including 75 from DisadPlications."

 

If you start with no DisadPlications, you still have 325 pts to use.

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

[LoneWolf]

That is correct.  

[Doc Democracy]

What @LoneWolf said.  🙂

[Duke Bushido]

Thank you again-  well, thank you for the first time, I suppose, as you are different gentlemen.

 

Still, thanks to all for setting the memory straight.