The necessity of complications/disadvantages

[Doc Democracy]

Just saw this on Twitter.  Get over there and have your say...

 

[Doc Democracy]

6 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Just saw this on Twitter.  Get over there and have your say...

 

 

I think that, when it came out, disadvantages were radical.  To build weaknesses into your character was a brand new way to build character into your character along with the abilities and skills they might have.  It is not just Champions.  I have said before, it was Justice Inc that brought home to me the way it had changed the way my players approached their games.  When the player who delivered mad slasher, after mad slasher came to me with Catherine Du Pont, with a huge COM, face skills, a single derringer revolver and a physical disadvantage that their first action in any combat was to freeze and scream was ASTOUNDING!!!

[Asperion]

I believe that these games (like everything else) evolves over time.  Supes didn't start with his troubles with those rocks, and disadvantages would have appeared in games regardless if Supes developed his problems or not.  What form todays games would be like is anyone's guess,  but those problems would be in there. 

[Doc Democracy]

38 minutes ago, Asperion said:

Supes didn't start with his troubles with those rocks,

 

You made me go look at Wikipedia.  So Superman was first published in 1938 and the first use of kryptonite (on radio) was in 1943 and on paper in 1949.  It was interesting though that the author reached for it in 1940 (an unpublished story).

 

41 minutes ago, Asperion said:

disadvantages would have appeared in games regardless if Supes developed his problems or not

 

I think something along the lines of personality stuff might have, not sure they would be in the kind of disadvantage/complication we currently see.  I think the Superman element influenced a lot of other heroes and that core material would undoubtedly have influenced the making of the games.

 

Doc

[LoneWolf]

There is  long history of characters having a single dehabilitating weakness.  Bram Stokers Dracula had multiple weakness including being destroyed by sunlight.  Werewolves being harmed by silver and the fey being harmed by iron also predate the appearance of superman.  Then there is the most famous disadvantage in history.  The term Achilles Heel comes from the Greek mythology that is thousands of years old.  Giving superman credit for the idea a character having a weakness is ignoring a long history of other characters having weaknesses.  

 

Even in gaming there are numerous examples of this.   When AD&D first came out Magic Users could not use armor and clerics were limited to specific weapons.  Champions might have been the first that gave players the choice of what their weakness was but is not the first to build weaknesses into characters.  
 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think probably Hero might not have started with complications, but eventually SOMONE would have come up with the idea of balancing characters using drawbacks.  Clearly, stuff like secret identities and susceptibility to Kryptonite came from the comics but the idea of building a character with innate flaws and weaknesses is as old as storytelling.

 

But yeah, the idea was groundbreaking and game-changing, literally, when Champions came out with disads.

[GDShore]

Yes the idea is groundbreaking, I had an occasional player in my first champions campaign, he could only show up for 1-n-3 sessions (which were two weeks apart to begin with) he had two characters which he would use depending on the boundaries of that session. 1 - The Derelict, a homeless drunk, two abilities, alcoholic belch (blast - stun attack) 2 - push back - focus fingerless gloves (telekinetic attack 8 die 6) and the Tourist, a stereotypical Japanese tourist (I know not exactly P.C.) coke bottom glasses that gave him x-ray vision, a set of cameras that gave him flash attacks and a microphone recorder system microphone slightly out of sync giving him a sonic "squeal" attack. He based the first on his father, and the second on an uncle by marriage. When he was playing the sessions dynamic completely changed. When he was not there, everyone was much more serious and laser focused, when there, they were looser and way more fun. 

[GDShore]

OH, I forgot to describe the Tourist's attire, Bermuda shorts in flourescent lime green, a Hawaiian print shirt, a straw hat and flip flops with knee high socks.

[Christopher R Taylor]

When I first started playing Champions in around 1982, I considered disadvantages a problem to work around, so I would pick the least problematic, least likely to actually impact my play options, and most GMs didn't even bother with writing them into the game.  As a GM I rarely would use disads as part of the story, which is a huge mistake.

 

But now, I see them as a very important, valuable tool to creating scenarios, and making characters.  Its how they work around their weaknesses that makes characters interesting, not how they steamroll every opposition.  There's a time and a place for total domination, like Superman vs a street gang.  But that should be used sparingly, to emphasize the character's actual power rather than a regular occurance.

 

Having the heroes win easily every time is as lame and dull as having them get bashed around and fail all the time is frustrating and infuriating.  A very little bit of each makes the campaign stronger and more memorable.

[Scott Ruggels]

In the old days (1981), Disads were an eye opener, and they were looked at as something to increase the points budget for your character. Two Hundred and Fifty points was the upper limit, but to get there was a lot like scrounging for change in the couch cushions, so I tended to build up to around 220, and then carefully add disads to increase the budget. My most successful Champions character started at 241 points. Careful selection of Disads really forced one to think about the whole character. Not just the powers.

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

In the old days (1981), Disads were an eye opener, and they were looked at as something to increase the points budget for your character. 

 

 

Thank you, Sir, for stating that better than anything I could come up with.

 

I can only speak for the group I was in at the time, but yes:  we _never_ considered Disads as part of some sort of great overarching role playing experience-  do _not_ misunderstand: we we're all completely familiar with ideas like character concept, roleplaying to character, etc, etc, and when we did take disadvantages, we selected even then as we do today: what is appropriate to the character that I envision?

 

But Disads were, to build on what Scott said, seen first and foremost as a trap!  A trap loaded with tasty, tasty, extra building points, just oozing with increased characteristics and dripping with extra damage dice and defensive abilities, lightly seasoned with a few new skills...

 

 

Tempting....  Oh, so very tempting....

 

But the trap!  The trap!  The GM had new ways- with in-gake mechanics!-  to get his murderous hooks into you....

 

 

 

 

Yeah.  Again, I would like to remind people of the general theme of us versus him that D and D brought, and that it took a couple of decades to finally drift out of gaming...

 

But that was our impression of them:  take only the absolute most vital amount of points, and select the disadvantages that were the least likely to make you the GM's plaything....

 

 

 

 

(A lot has changed since then, obviously)

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

It's interesting to see the evolution of gaming. D&D evolved from wargames, so the early adversarial approach probably should not be surprising.  The "DM vs Player" model also encouraged a PvP model as each player worked to increase their character's power, to the possible detriment of their allies.  The game has evolved considerably from competitive to collaborative over the years/decades.

 

Many of the early D&D modules were constructed around convention tournaments, where every group ran the same pre-fab characters with a "survive and loot" model for victory.  One of the old A-series (Slave Lords; A3 I think) was just two nine-room linear tournament dungeons connected with a bit of story. One had to believe magic lead to insanity, as there were a huge number of dungeon complexes created by mad wizards. I've never been a convention-goer, but my wife and I recently participated in D&D in a Castle, where each DM constructed a mini-campaign for their players. Our DM (Nerdarchist Ted Adams, if anyone cares to know) stated, well before the actual games, that his job was to create an awesome adventure tailored to the players' preferences. It was a great three days, and a far cry from a competitive tournament environment.

 

The evolution from "Players vs DM and each other" to "a game everyone enjoys" is likely a big part of the survival of the hobby overall, and differentiates it from online games and computer games.

[Asperion]

When I first started playing RPGs, I attempted ADND (found that was not for me and was nearly turned off), then went FASERIP (was hooked), but had problems with not being able to make the character the way I desire,  especially when it came to problems.  FASERIP assumed that everyone would be some perfect hero.  When I discovered Champions with its built in system of making imperfect characters,  I figured that was even better (though nothing is perfect). Now it seems as though everyone is trying to emulate this method of making imperfect characters,  regardless if it's an add on or worked in at the outset. 

[Ninja-Bear]

The thing about Superman and Kryptonite, if what I heard is correct is that it came about because Superman was so powerful. The writers kinda put Superman in a corner. They needed a weakness so as to power him down. 
 

I think 6th has it right whereas you pick a smaller amount of complications that you really want to play. 
 

About DnD being adversarial, by the time I started playing. It was there. However, looking over the source materiel, it was never supposed to be that way. Maybe too many DM went on a power trip?

 

Let me add that Complications aren’t necessary to the game really. At least as a mechanic. Players will either play characters with some sort of flaws or not regardless of the rules.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Ninja-Bear

[BoloOfEarth]

My namesake character (Bolo) was created back in the first-edition days, and my players and I pretty much maxed out the disads for as many points to play with as possible.  Bolo was Vulnerable to Fire Attacks, Vulnerable to Explosions, and Hunted by Firewing.  (Yeah, not the smartest collection of disads.)  I remember one time he got one-shot taken out by one of Firewing's agents with a Flame Grenade.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

It was not easy in the early editions to get a full suite of disads, even 100 points was a challenge and sometimes characters would have a lot of filler just to get the points.  Especially with the diminishing returns rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

As I recall 1e-2e, everyone had 3 or 4 30 point Hunteds (so 75 - 90 points; they did not really show up 25% of the time) and a lot of Psych/personality disadvantages.  There was a lot of filler, often with the GM just tying Hunteds into expected campaign adversaries rather than adding them on to the scenario.

[GDShore]

The crew I played with in the early '80's took the "disad's" as a challenge to help create totally unique characters. They were a team, so their hunted's were pretty much the same and they as a group created the skeletons of them each of them though had their own specific hunter(s). All of us had played D&D, Traveller, Gamma World, Empire of the Petal Throne and Chivalry and Sorcery in fact some of us were testers for C&S. We had done a lot of RPG. The idea of disadvantages opened up a whole new world for us. As game master, I tried to introduce situations where the individual disad's. could/would occur as well as solving the adventure du jour how they dealt with their particular issue became an expected and anticipated part of the gaming. This was not an adversarial thing rather, Champions (HERO system) was story telling, the game master would create the framework for the adventure and the players the dialogue, action and flesh of the tail. Something that most of the RPG systems didn't do, though some hinted at it.

[wcw43921]

On 7/23/2023 at 6:11 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

The thing about Superman and Kryptonite, if what I heard is correct is that it came about because Superman was so powerful. The writers kinda put Superman in a corner. They needed a weakness so as to power him down. 

 

The K-Metal From Krypton

 

Kryptonite At The Superman Wiki

[Khymeria]

On 7/23/2023 at 4:11 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

I think 6th has it right whereas you pick a smaller amount of complications that you really want to play. 

I absolutely agree with this and it is one of the better changes to keep things tight and actually have them matter. I will say with the lower point total for Complications that Vulnerability and Susceptibility are much rarer, as well as Enraged. I’m fine with the way it is though because players aren’t stretching to fill up the total. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I have had players buy more complications than required/requested, because their character design just ended up that way.  But its easier for the average character design to not require so many.  Some editions I think I recall wanted 150 points in disads and that's just ridiculous, we just ignored that suggestion.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Christopher R Taylor

[Duke Bushido]

On 7/21/2023 at 6:10 AM, Doc Democracy said:

Just saw this on Twitter.  Get over there and have your say...

 

 

Missed,rhis the first time through.

 

I appreciate the invite, Sir, but if I didn't board the ship when it was,in ita Prime, I am certainly not going aboard when it is sinking.

 

 

 

[Tech]

I'm glad to say Champions pulled me away from DnD and never looked back. Disadvantages/Complications done creatively add so much fun to a character.

[Ninja-Bear]

The other day I watched Dungeon Craft and Prof. DM talked about how he uses Awesome Dice. Roughly his own invention of hero points that he rewards players for good roleplaying.

[Ninja-Bear]

Ultimately though, you don’t need Complications for Roleplaying. All you need is an idea of what your character is about.