Disadvantage based XP

[arcady]

In 7th Sea you have an XP system that gives XP for bringing your weakness into play. If your weakness shows up during the session, you get one bonus point.

 

In effect, players in that system are encouraged to work the game into a situation where their weakness comes up and hinders them.

 

 

I want to bring that into Hero. I'm thinking of replacing the two parts about roleplay XP with notes on Disads.

 

The idea would thus make sure disads became a part of the game, and characters could thus grow around them.

 

Something like this:

 

+1 for bringing a disad into play during the session.

-1 for doing something to avoid letting the disad into play.

 

It needs refinement, and general thoughts to see how to steer it and how best to use the concept.

 

Ideas or opinions?

[Agent X]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

In 7th Sea you have an XP system that gives XP for bringing your weakness into play. If your weakness shows up during the session, you get one bonus point.

 

In effect, players in that system are encouraged to work the game into a situation where their weakness comes up and hinders them.

 

 

I want to bring that into Hero. I'm thinking of replacing the two parts about roleplay XP with notes on Disads.

 

The idea would thus make sure disads became a part of the game, and characters could thus grow around them.

 

Something like this:

 

+1 for bringing a disad into play during the session.

-1 for doing something to avoid letting the disad into play.

 

It needs refinement, and general thoughts to see how to steer it and how best to use the concept.

 

Ideas or opinions?

I wouldn't penalize anyone for avoiding letting a disad into play. That's just problem-solving. If you want to reward them from exploiting their disad in a story that sounds cool. I think the +1 would work fine.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

Isn't doing something to avoid bringing the Disad into play, logically speaking, bringing the Disad into play? If I make sure my DNPCs are safe in Omega Force Headquarters before I go out to foil Dr. Destroyer's latest plot, isn't that in effect taking care of my DNPCs? And if the DNPC activation roll comes up anyway, what's to stop Dr. D from sending robots or agents into the HQ to take hostages?

[cutsleeve]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

i think this is a pretty good idea. But like the others said i wouldnt penalize for avoiding the disadvantage. If the disadvatage doesnt come into play oh well if it does and he deals with it then he has brought it into play and dealt with it.

 

The Xp system for hero is loose enough that you can give xp for pretty much anything so this isnt a problem.

 

Id just worry about how much xp you give out.

[zebediah]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

The one thing I would note is that this would need to replace "frequency" on most disadvantages--otherwise you get more points to build your character because your disadvantage comes up often, and you get more points in XP because your disadvantage comes up often.

 

I might eliminate the 'frequency' of disadvantages and just give players an XP whenever a disadvantage is a hindrance at the level bought. You might want to cap the total that can be gained in a given session, and do some calculations based on the expected life of the campaign, etc., given that you've just introduced the concept of "banking XPs, with dividends" to the players.

 

You might want to look at Nobilis, another system that gives rewards when disadvantages come up.

[arcady]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

I would look at doing something to avoid as a player ignoring the disad, or refusing a plot thread that involved it, or otherwise ensuring it does not enter game play.

 

That's very different that working around it, or struggling against it - in game and in play.

 

Essentially, it is not different than any other issue of bad roleplaying.

 

 

As a GM, I expect players to create and drive the majority of the plots, I'm just the facilitator. Players who take an active hand, and who bring up and roleplay with their disads are the ones I want to reward.

 

A player who tries to avoid the disad should never have been given points for it to begin with.

[cutsleeve]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

well i wouldnt remve the frequency for disadvatages it would still apply for hunted and suck because DoctorDemonLordDreadKnightDireDevilOfTheDemonicDungeonsOfDestruction

May just not want to bother your life today he may have an appointment with another superhero or he needs to get some groceries from the local Arcane O Mart.

 

Those frequencies are a guiding point for the Gm's to say how often can i make the characters life a living hell when he doesnt want it. plus the frequency can simulate how often the characters efforts to do something are foiled. like a dnpc you tell them to stay in this safe spot you have until TheOmegaCow has been vanquished. But because the Gm rolled for involvement and got it mean the dnpc just happened to decide they needed some more gum and went to the store for just a split second "i mean whats the odds that Thedoomsday chicken will attack you and bring you to the Farm in that span of time" or maybe ZetaGoat breached your Fortress of Pleasentness and kidnapped the dnpc.

 

going off on a tangent there but basically im saying frequency is their for the Gm just in case the character neglected a disadvantage. Plus not all characters want their disadvantages coming into play. Mine certainly didnt.

[arcady]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

A -character- might not want it coming into play, but a -player- had better want it to, otherwise they should not have put it on the sheet.

[cutsleeve]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

i dont think that most players want those mp infrequnetly imprisonment+experimentation hunted to come around either but its part of who their character is.

[tesuji]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

i am using a similar system in my mnm game now.

 

if you want to bring it into hero, you should consider removing disad pts. give the heroes whatever pts you want them to have and then ask them to draw up disads they want to happen.

 

when the disad comes up, reward them with additional xp based on how bad it affected them, from same 1-3 xp at session's end.

 

With the ONLY rewards for disads coming up when they occur and based on how much they matter, you have turned your players thinking 180 degrees. They will now be taking disads they think WILL come up and bite them, as opposed to looking for ones that wont.

 

if you leave the initial "extra points" in, the old "get points now and dodge later"shenanigans will continue.

[Agent X]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

I would look at doing something to avoid as a player ignoring the disad, or refusing a plot thread that involved it, or otherwise ensuring it does not enter game play.

 

That's very different that working around it, or struggling against it - in game and in play.

 

Essentially, it is not different than any other issue of bad roleplaying.

 

 

As a GM, I expect players to create and drive the majority of the plots, I'm just the facilitator. Players who take an active hand, and who bring up and roleplay with their disads are the ones I want to reward.

 

A player who tries to avoid the disad should never have been given points for it to begin with.

Could you give me an example of the difference between avoiding a disad and working around or struggling with a disad?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

I think the idea between "avoiding" and "working around" is the difference between Meta-Gaming and Role-Playing.

 

A player avoids a disad by ignoring it or using some meta-game factor to justify the Disad no affecting the character.

 

Working Around is the player actively making the character think about and deal with a particular disadvantage (or, from a character POV, issue of some nature).

 

Such as a Fear of Heights coming into play when the villain is up in the skyscraper. a bad player would avoid it by ignoring the disad ("Of course he ignores the heights, there are innocents in danger!") or simply making that EGO role and going - "Yep, I climb the tower after TheBadGuy." A good player would work around the issue by possibly attempting to lure the villain down to the ground level or working with his teammates to lure the villain down to where he feels comfortable, and if all else fails getting up the nerve to climb the stairs to the top (in other words the EGO Roll to overcome the Psych Lim is the last ditch plan).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

in other words the EGO Roll to overcome the Psych Lim is the last ditch plan.

 

This is the cruix of psych's for me. A player whose first reaction, when faced with his character's greatest fear, is to reach for the dice and say "made my ego roll. Carry on." is a poor role player, in my opinion. My players historically ignore the ego roll rules and play their disadvantage - most often playing it up. ["I didn't take Overconfident to back down to Firewing. "How's about a little one on one, tough guy?"]

 

To me, bonus xp for playing to your psych's, and reduced xp for ingoring them, falls squarely under "rewarding good role playing".

[ghost-angel]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

To me the EGO Roll is what the hero does near the final climax of the movie to overcome their greatest fear, when they've run out of every other choice available - not the first thing, ten minutes in.

[arcady]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

i dont think that most players want those mp infrequnetly imprisonment+experimentation hunted to come around either but its part of who their character is.

As I said, the -PLAYER- should want that hunted to come around. The character is a different story.

 

First sign of a bad roleplayer: Player and character goals do not differ in any way or in any degree.

 

A player should be at the table merely to have the most fun and engaging experience possible. A character is there to meet her goals and succeed. Sometimes a player may in fact be working in direct opposition to their character...

 

 

The difference is often -metagaming- between the judgements above. Essentially, I see it the same as judging good or bad roleplay. It is rather subjective in an uncomfortably messy way... but that's the method, use whatever means you use to judge quality of roleplay.

[arcady]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

To me' date=' bonus xp for playing to your psych's, and reduced xp for ingoring them, falls squarely under "rewarding good role playing".[/quote']

 

Yes, it does. What I want to do is simply limit my judging of roleplay to this category in order to encourage players to play up their disads more, and to encourage them in character design to take ones they will be able and willing to roleplay out during play.

 

I want to lesson the work I have to do to get them to come up in play, by making it my players who try to twist the plot to get their characters into deeper trouble.

 

It's a judgement of good roleplay, but it also make's the GMs job of ensuring they earn the points they got for the disadvantages a lot easier by putting the burden on them.

 

Player's don't do enough work as it is, so anything you can shift on them is fair game in my book.

 

 

Most of what I want to do here is find the best wording for tossing a big fat carrot at them, making earning that +1 very attractive and very clear as to how to do it. The counter -1 is just there to balance the thing out.

[Agent X]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

As I said, the -PLAYER- should want that hunted to come around. The character is a different story.

 

First sign of a bad roleplayer: Player and character goals do not differ in any way or in any degree.

 

A player should be at the table merely to have the most fun and engaging experience possible. A character is there to meet her goals and succeed. Sometimes a player may in fact be working in direct opposition to their character...

I think I understand what you are getting at but I wouldn't word it this way. As a player, I seek challenges for my character. I seek to overcome obstacles while role-playing my psych lims. I'm disappointed when a GM doesn't use my DNPCs to "complicate" my adventures. However, I'm not out to vicariously torture the character so I don't really think I'm working in direct opposition to my character.

 

I think it's a lot more fun to brag about my character overcoming his archenemy AND saving the lives of innocents when my archenemy is exploiting my psych lim of protective of innocents than when we face off in an arena or something. Case in point - recently my character, Professor Polaris, faced off against his archenemy, Cyberstar, who used bystanders to create a tactical advantage over Professor Polaris. I had to prevent a helicopter from crashing which allowed Cyberstar to TK grab me which is not good because I use an OAF for much of my power. I had to make a power skill roll to use my flight and strength in concert to break out only to have to interpose in front of a blast from Cyberstar when he targeted the bystanders on the street. Ultimately, I was able to remove the people from the helicopter and send the helicopter straight at Cyberstar to win the day. However, it was a hard fought victory and I very nearly didn't succeed. Had Cyberstar done slightly more stun to me when I blocked his attack on the bystanders, I would have been stunned and that would have been a bad thing in a one-on-one fight. And that's just roleplaying my character's disads in a fight...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

you should consider removing disad pts. give the heroes whatever pts you want them to have and then ask them to draw up disads they want to happen.

 

when the disad comes up, reward them with additional xp based on how bad it affected them, from same 1-3 xp at session's end.

You beat me to it, Tesuji. This was going to be my suggestion as well.

 

To elaborate a bit... If you want 350 point superhero characters, for example, don't have the players build characters with 200 Base Points and 150 points in Disads. Instead, just have them make 350 point characters (350 Base Points, if you want to think of it that way), and they can choose to define as many or as few Disads as they think fit the character.

 

Then, when the Disads actually come into play, they get bonus XPs for them. So you don't get points up front for being Hunted by Doctor Sinister... you get points when Doctor Sinister actually shows up to hassle you. You don't get points for having a Protective Of Innocents Psych Lim... you get points for having to confront a situation where your Psych Lim seriously endangers you, or causes you to let a villain escape to save an innocent, or forces you to think creatively to both save the innocent and catch the villain, and so on.

 

This setup also neatly eliminates the problem of players taking "meaningless" Disads. If you've got a joker in your group who tries to take stupid Disads like "Terrified of Red Trolley Cars," it's not a problem anymore. If he never encounters red trolley cars, and never has to confront the phobia, then he never gets any points for it.

[KA.]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

Well, if you are looking for a good name for this concept, you could call them:

Angst Points

 

I fully expect players to role-play their Disadvantages.

And I think it is appropriate to award particularly good role-play.

But I am not sure if I would want a deliberate mechanism in place that ties the two together.

 

I want the players to role-play their Disadvantages realistically.

I don't want to encourage the player with: "Protective of their friends", to spend half an hour in every game session "making friends" with the NPC voted "most likely to be threatened", so that they can earn a bonus Experience Point.

 

A lot depends on the general tone of the campaign though.

If you are playing four-color, people who are protective don't make friends with everyone, but their friends end up in a lot of danger. (This would be more under the GM's control than the players, unless the players are putting their friends in danger, which kind of goes against the genre.

Superman: "Jimmy, Lois, why don't you two go check out the abandoned Plutonium mine, that everyone says is haunted?

I'll be along to check on you after you get captured . . . Uhhh, I mean, after I patrol the city.";) )

 

But, if you are playing Iron Age, it may be appropriate for your heroes to constantly befriend those that are obviously doomed to die tragically.

After all, how else are they going to constantly recharge their Angst Battery?

 

I guess my real take on it is that it should be cooperative. The GM should provide opportunities for players to role-play their Psych Lims, and the players should take them.

 

But I am not sure that I want to make it so directly related that The Human Torch keeps diving into water tanks, and Superman spends the mission trying to hunt down some Kryptonite, because they want the XP bonus.

 

Another way to make sure that the players are properly limited by their Disadvantages, is to be very careful when they are initially purchased.

Disadvantages generally have a point spread based on how often they come up in play.

If you, as the GM, don't want to have to come up with a reason why Viper is doing something regarding the character nearly every adventure, don't let them take: "Hunted by Viper, 14 or less".

That makes more sense to me than expecting the player to go pick a fight with Viper to earn an extra XP. Then they would be "Hunting" instead of "Hunted".

So don't let them buy things with a higher frequency than you are willing to put into your campaign. That way you won't have to constantly "force" situations where their Disadvantages come up.

 

KA.

[cutsleeve]

Re: Disadvantage based XP

 

Some players dont want those hunted to come popping around because they think like their characters when they play those roles. more powerful hunted are not their to be enjoyed and anticipated by the player and characters theyre there to scare the hell out of them and make their lives a living hell. As apposed to a minor or moderate annoyance.

 

Thats the sign of a good roleplayer if a more powerful hunted was to show up some good roleplaying might involve the hero running away as fast as he or she can and hoping that the villian didnt see them.

 

Now if you have a character who is overconfident and has a MP hunted the player still might not want the hunted to show up but the character wouldnt care because this would give them a chance to prove theyre better. though itll probably be a chance to prove that the human boday can be bent into a pretzle.

 

Like i was saying i liked the idea of xp awards for disadvantages but dont expect all players to want the villians to show up. Thats why its the Gm's job to make them show up and the heroes job to deal with him showing up. plus it would be hard to meta-game a hunted away. "grond shows up he's mad and he remembers he doesnt like you." "I refuse to acknowledge his exsistance here, so i go back to beating on the other villians." "thats nice the problem is that grond doesnt ingnore your exsistance here."