Psychological Limitations and You

[Guest Worldmaker]

Everyone who plays champions is familiar with the basic premise behind disadvantages: they balance out your character. The more powerful he is starting out, the more negative baggage he also starts out with. In addition, they give him flavor and color, making him truly different from all the other four-color do-gooders out there. While secret identities, vulnerabilities, DNPCs, Hunteds, and Berserks are all interesting and important components of that, I feel that the single most important aspect of any given character are his psychological limitations. Psychological limitations (or "Psych Limits", for short) can best get at the heart of a character.

 

Why does he do what he does? What makes him different from the villains he fights? What human foibles does he have, and what makes him rise above them to become a hero?

 

Obviously, questions like these are best answered in a well-thought-out background and origin. But I believe that to build a well-rounded, believable, and interesting character -- in other words, one who would actually make a good comic book character -- you need to be able to pick out those bits of the character's background and personality that are most essential to the character, and list them in simple, bullet-point style statements. Those statements should then be written down on the character sheet as Psych Limits.

 

This last part is important. Very important. As cynical as it may sound, we all know that many players will put stuff in their character's origin and background saying one thing, but when it comes down to beating the bad guys at any cost, if it ain't on the character sheet, they ain't gonna play it.

 

As mentioned above, I believe that Psych Limits should add to the character and be entertaining, even if they are occasionally annoying to the player or detrimental to the character. They should also add something to the overall campaign.

 

Guidelines For Using Psychological Limitations

 

1. Do not take a Psych Limit that you know you cannot or will not play, or one with which you will quickly get bored. This involves a basic bit of self-honesty. If you know you can't help but crack jokes and poke fun at the other characters, don't take "grim and humorless" unless you are really prepared to play it and feel that you won't eventually get bored having to restrain your natural wit.

 

Psych Limits can be a great tool for keeping yourself in line when you are trying to play something really different from what you normally play, and if that's your motivation for taking a given Psych Limit, great! But never take a Psych Limit just to get the points if you know that, when push comes to shove, you are going to try to rationalize your way around it.

 

This, of course, doesn't really apply to Psych Limits that are forced upon you by gm fiat. I know a lot of GMs who, when running a traditional superhero genre game, force their players to take a 0-point "Reluctant to Kill" Psych Limit (unless the character has a really good reason for not having it). If this happens to you, all you can do is shrug and play it as best you can.

 

To GMs, I say don't give your villains Psych Limits you are not going to roleplay or use. Or rather, if a villain has a given Psych Limit, figure out ahead of time how you are going to play it; then figure out if and how it will affect the adventure. If the villain has "Megalomania", then he should be an insufferable, grandstanding marshmallow! If he has "Fear Of Crowds", make sure that the players have a chance to notice that, as their battle with the villain spills out into the street, the villain gets more and more uncomfortable the more that people show up to watch the fight.

 

 

 

2. Do not take meaningless or silly Psychological Limitations. This is just a reiteration of the proviso given in the hero system rulebook. "Hatred Of The Color Pink" is not a legitimate Psych Limit, unless you have a really good rationale for it! "Talks Like Porky Pig All The Time" isn't a legitimate Psych Limit either, despite the fact that it would be a legitimate disadvantage in the real world. Why? Because mainly its annoying and stupid. And that's the kind of thing a good GM will put his foot down and forbid.

 

This brings up the issue of Quirks. Most Champions players have either played GURPS at some point or have at least looked at the occasional GURPS book, and thus are familiar with Quirks. For those of you who aren't, quirks are little, one-point disadvantages (the player may take up to five of them) that are intended to add a touch of color to a character. They are basically Psych Limits that aren't worth points because they have almost no long-term affect on the character.

 

For example, "Always Wears A New York Yankees Baseball Cap When In His Civilian Identity" or "Always Says 'Great Googaly Moogaly' When Surprised Or Troubled" would be good Quirks. The best thing about Quirks is that they don't have to be enforced that much. (If the character ditches his Yankees ballcap because he's going to a formal party in a tuxedo, that's fine.)

 

For GM's familiar with GURPS and Quirks, I highly recommend allowing them into Champions, too. They're fun, as long as you don't let them get too goofy, and they are a great way to pick up one or two disadvantage points that you might need to balance your character.

 

 

 

3. Don't get too worked up about Psychological Limitations being "soft": It is interesting to note that a lot of things that would be considered Quirks under GURPS are full-blown Psychological Limitations in Champions. Does this mean that the Champions system is somehow broken? I don't think so. In fact, it can fairly be said that there are times that GURPS is downright anal retentive when it comes to points for disadvantages. They only want to give points for disadvantages that actually hinder the character. (Of course, some GM's are like that as well.)

 

I am less of that mind and more of the "points for anything that hinders the character or determines how the character is going to be played for its duration". For example, "Grim And Humorless" is only a Quirk in GURPS, but I consider it to be a true and legitimate Psych Limit in Champions (albeit, one worth only 10 points) because it defines a major chunk of the character's personality. And as a GM, I am less concerned about players getting "free points" for "light" disadvantages than I am about getting players to play well-thought-out characters with clearly defined personalities.

 

Still, I would warn you about allowing stupid, annoying, unplayable, or inappropriate Psych Limits first and foremost. You're going to have to use your own judgment on what is and is not appropriate for your own campaign, but you were going to do that anyway.

 

 

 

4. Make Psychological Limitations be worth their points. This piece of advice is for GM's. Basically, make sure that the Psych Limits really do limit or at least guide the character in how they are played. To be specific, let's look for a moment at "strong" and "total" commitments.

 

According to the rules, a character can, by force of will, ignore or violate a "strong commitment" to a Psych Limit by making an ego roll. If I, as GM, feel that the character doesn't have sufficient motivation to ignore that Psych Limit, I will assess a penalty to the roll. I don't do this to be a hard-ass, but sometimes (and every experienced Champions GM out there knows what I am talking about) the player gets more concerned with beating the bad guy or accomplishing the goal than with correctly roleplaying their characters. At this point, what you get is someone playing a super boyscout saying something like "Well, I know that this plan will endanger some innocent normals, but they probably won't get hurt. I'll make an ego roll to violate my 'Protective Of Innocent Normals' Psych Limit, since I think this is a really good plan." Not without a penalty, you won't. Of course, if a transgression seems particularly unbelievable to you, the GM, don't even allow the ego roll. Just say "Sorry, but you can't make yourself do that."

 

With "total commitment" Psych Limits, no violations are normally allowed unless the GM decides that the circumstances are so extreme that the character would consider violating his Psych Limit. This is what "total commitment" means, after all. In a couple of occasions, I have allowed ego rolls with an -8 or -10 penalty to see if the character could violate his Psych Limit. For example, a character with total commitments to both "Protective Of His Family" and "Code vs. Killing" could conceivably violate the latter to follow the former. In cases of "make the roll or the entire planet dies", I wouldn't assess any penalty at all -- and I’d have a backup plan in case the character blew the roll.

 

If a player is constantly attempting to violate his Psych Limit, your best bet is to talk to him about it. Try to convince him to either a) play the character the way it’s written or play a different character. If neither of these options works for you, you can always run a major adventure (or series of adventures), culminating in all of the players getting their experience points at the end in the form of some cosmic/magical "gift". This "gift" can be a new power (appropriate to the character, of course) or having a disadvantage bought off. In the case of the recalcitrant player, decide for yourself that it will be the latter.

 

Of course, there are going to be instances where you don't want a disadvantage ignored or bought off. Cases where you want a specific character to have a "Code vs. Killing" because without it, you know he's going to be vaporizing mooks left and right. In those cases, my advice is stick to your guns. Try to convince the player or players that if they will concede this one small matter to you, you will be able to provide them with a much more enjoyable campaign all around. Ultimately, you have to wonder about why a player who cannot enjoy a superhero campaign without killing or maiming his foes is playing Champions in the first place. But then again, that's starting to get into the old "How to manage your playing group's dynamic" argument, which is totally beyond the scope of this article.

 

Make sure everyone is in agreement on what a given Psychological Limitation means: If you're a GM, its always good advice to sit down before you begin play go through the character's disadvantages with the player and tell them how you intend to use them in the campaign. This is doubly true of Psych Limits. You'll probably get a few players who say, "I didn't know you were going to use the disadvantage like that. I don't want it after all", and that's fine. It is much better to find out these things before play really begins than in the middle of the action later on.

 

 

 

5. Role-play your characters Psychological Limitations. As a player, only take a Psych Limit if you really want to play it. Don't take a limitation, especially one with a "moderate commitment" (which requires no ego roll to violate), with the intentions of either violating it or trying to violate it all the time. If your character has a "moderate" case of Pyrophobia (the fear of fire), he should hesitate before running into a burning building and then only because he really has to. And afterward, he should really be freaked out over it. It may be frustrating to let the bad guy go because your hero has a fear of heights and can't chase him out onto the roof of a building, or because he lives by a code which says never put normals at risk, but trust me -- if you do play your hero in character, it will make for a more enjoyable game, and make finally getting the bad guy that much more satisfying.

[Agent X]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

Everyone who plays champions is familiar with the basic premise behind disadvantages: they balance out your character. The more powerful he is starting out, the more negative baggage he also starts out with. In addition, they give him flavor and color, making him truly different from all the other four-color do-gooders out there. While secret identities, vulnerabilities, DNPCs, Hunteds, and Berserks are all interesting and important components of that, I feel that the single most important aspect of any given character are his psychological limitations. Psychological limitations (or "Psych Limits", for short) can best get at the heart of a character.

 

Why does he do what he does? What makes him different from the villains he fights? What human foibles does he have, and what makes him rise above them to become a hero?

 

Obviously, questions like these are best answered in a well-thought-out background and origin. But I believe that to build a well-rounded, believable, and interesting character -- in other words, one who would actually make a good comic book character -- you need to be able to pick out those bits of the character's background and personality that are most essential to the character, and list them in simple, bullet-point style statements. Those statements should then be written down on the character sheet as Psych Limits.

 

This last part is important. Very important. As cynical as it may sound, we all know that many players will put stuff in their character's origin and background saying one thing, but when it comes down to beating the bad guys at any cost, if it ain't on the character sheet, they ain't gonna play it.

 

As mentioned above, I believe that Psych Limits should add to the character and be entertaining, even if they are occasionally annoying to the player or detrimental to the character. They should also add something to the overall campaign.

 

Guidelines For Using Psychological Limitations

 

1. Do not take a Psych Limit that you know you cannot or will not play, or one with which you will quickly get bored. This involves a basic bit of self-honesty. If you know you can't help but crack jokes and poke fun at the other characters, don't take "grim and humorless" unless you are really prepared to play it and feel that you won't eventually get bored having to restrain your natural wit.

 

Psych Limits can be a great tool for keeping yourself in line when you are trying to play something really different from what you normally play, and if that's your motivation for taking a given Psych Limit, great! But never take a Psych Limit just to get the points if you know that, when push comes to shove, you are going to try to rationalize your way around it.

 

This, of course, doesn't really apply to Psych Limits that are forced upon you by gm fiat. I know a lot of GMs who, when running a traditional superhero genre game, force their players to take a 0-point "Reluctant to Kill" Psych Limit (unless the character has a really good reason for not having it). If this happens to you, all you can do is shrug and play it as best you can.

 

To GMs, I say don't give your villains Psych Limits you are not going to roleplay or use. Or rather, if a villain has a given Psych Limit, figure out ahead of time how you are going to play it; then figure out if and how it will affect the adventure. If the villain has "Megalomania", then he should be an insufferable, grandstanding marshmallow! If he has "Fear Of Crowds", make sure that the players have a chance to notice that, as their battle with the villain spills out into the street, the villain gets more and more uncomfortable the more that people show up to watch the fight.

 

 

 

2. Do not take meaningless or silly Psychological Limitations. This is just a reiteration of the proviso given in the hero system rulebook. "Hatred Of The Color Pink" is not a legitimate Psych Limit, unless you have a really good rationale for it! "Talks Like Porky Pig All The Time" isn't a legitimate Psych Limit either, despite the fact that it would be a legitimate disadvantage in the real world. Why? Because mainly its annoying and stupid. And that's the kind of thing a good GM will put his foot down and forbid.

 

This brings up the issue of Quirks. Most Champions players have either played GURPS at some point or have at least looked at the occasional GURPS book, and thus are familiar with Quirks. For those of you who aren't, quirks are little, one-point disadvantages (the player may take up to five of them) that are intended to add a touch of color to a character. They are basically Psych Limits that aren't worth points because they have almost no long-term affect on the character.

 

For example, "Always Wears A New York Yankees Baseball Cap When In His Civilian Identity" or "Always Says 'Great Googaly Moogaly' When Surprised Or Troubled" would be good Quirks. The best thing about Quirks is that they don't have to be enforced that much. (If the character ditches his Yankees ballcap because he's going to a formal party in a tuxedo, that's fine.)

 

For GM's familiar with GURPS and Quirks, I highly recommend allowing them into Champions, too. They're fun, as long as you don't let them get too goofy, and they are a great way to pick up one or two disadvantage points that you might need to balance your character.

 

 

 

3. Don't get too worked up about Psychological Limitations being "soft": It is interesting to note that a lot of things that would be considered Quirks under GURPS are full-blown Psychological Limitations in Champions. Does this mean that the Champions system is somehow broken? I don't think so. In fact, it can fairly be said that there are times that GURPS is downright anal retentive when it comes to points for disadvantages. They only want to give points for disadvantages that actually hinder the character. (Of course, some GM's are like that as well.)

 

I am less of that mind and more of the "points for anything that hinders the character or determines how the character is going to be played for its duration". For example, "Grim And Humorless" is only a Quirk in GURPS, but I consider it to be a true and legitimate Psych Limit in Champions (albeit, one worth only 10 points) because it defines a major chunk of the character's personality. And as a GM, I am less concerned about players getting "free points" for "light" disadvantages than I am about getting players to play well-thought-out characters with clearly defined personalities.

 

Still, I would warn you about allowing stupid, annoying, unplayable, or inappropriate Psych Limits first and foremost. You're going to have to use your own judgment on what is and is not appropriate for your own campaign, but you were going to do that anyway.

 

 

 

4. Make Psychological Limitations be worth their points. This piece of advice is for GM's. Basically, make sure that the Psych Limits really do limit or at least guide the character in how they are played. To be specific, let's look for a moment at "strong" and "total" commitments.

 

According to the rules, a character can, by force of will, ignore or violate a "strong commitment" to a Psych Limit by making an ego roll. If I, as GM, feel that the character doesn't have sufficient motivation to ignore that Psych Limit, I will assess a penalty to the roll. I don't do this to be a hard-ass, but sometimes (and every experienced Champions GM out there knows what I am talking about) the player gets more concerned with beating the bad guy or accomplishing the goal than with correctly roleplaying their characters. At this point, what you get is someone playing a super boyscout saying something like "Well, I know that this plan will endanger some innocent normals, but they probably won't get hurt. I'll make an ego roll to violate my 'Protective Of Innocent Normals' Psych Limit, since I think this is a really good plan." Not without a penalty, you won't. Of course, if a transgression seems particularly unbelievable to you, the GM, don't even allow the ego roll. Just say "Sorry, but you can't make yourself do that."

 

With "total commitment" Psych Limits, no violations are normally allowed unless the GM decides that the circumstances are so extreme that the character would consider violating his Psych Limit. This is what "total commitment" means, after all. In a couple of occasions, I have allowed ego rolls with an -8 or -10 penalty to see if the character could violate his Psych Limit. For example, a character with total commitments to both "Protective Of His Family" and "Code vs. Killing" could conceivably violate the latter to follow the former. In cases of "make the roll or the entire planet dies", I wouldn't assess any penalty at all -- and I’d have a backup plan in case the character blew the roll.

 

If a player is constantly attempting to violate his Psych Limit, your best bet is to talk to him about it. Try to convince him to either a) play the character the way it’s written or play a different character. If neither of these options works for you, you can always run a major adventure (or series of adventures), culminating in all of the players getting their experience points at the end in the form of some cosmic/magical "gift". This "gift" can be a new power (appropriate to the character, of course) or having a disadvantage bought off. In the case of the recalcitrant player, decide for yourself that it will be the latter.

 

Of course, there are going to be instances where you don't want a disadvantage ignored or bought off. Cases where you want a specific character to have a "Code vs. Killing" because without it, you know he's going to be vaporizing mooks left and right. In those cases, my advice is stick to your guns. Try to convince the player or players that if they will concede this one small matter to you, you will be able to provide them with a much more enjoyable campaign all around. Ultimately, you have to wonder about why a player who cannot enjoy a superhero campaign without killing or maiming his foes is playing Champions in the first place. But then again, that's starting to get into the old "How to manage your playing group's dynamic" argument, which is totally beyond the scope of this article.

 

Make sure everyone is in agreement on what a given Psychological Limitation means: If you're a GM, its always good advice to sit down before you begin play go through the character's disadvantages with the player and tell them how you intend to use them in the campaign. This is doubly true of Psych Limits. You'll probably get a few players who say, "I didn't know you were going to use the disadvantage like that. I don't want it after all", and that's fine. It is much better to find out these things before play really begins than in the middle of the action later on.

 

 

 

5. Role-play your characters Psychological Limitations. As a player, only take a Psych Limit if you really want to play it. Don't take a limitation, especially one with a "moderate commitment" (which requires no ego roll to violate), with the intentions of either violating it or trying to violate it all the time. If your character has a "moderate" case of Pyrophobia (the fear of fire), he should hesitate before running into a burning building and then only because he really has to. And afterward, he should really be freaked out over it. It may be frustrating to let the bad guy go because your hero has a fear of heights and can't chase him out onto the roof of a building, or because he lives by a code which says never put normals at risk, but trust me -- if you do play your hero in character, it will make for a more enjoyable game, and make finally getting the bad guy that much more satisfying.

A great deal of good advice.

[Magmarock]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

I was going to say that, too!

 

Nothing burns my britches more than Players who ignore their PC's Psych Disads.

 

Mags

[pinecone]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

I always warn players once..."Dude if you don't play your lims ,I'm gonna keep all your Eeps till you can buy it off"

[AngryBug]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

Good points, WM!

 

Psych Lims are supposed to be the 'broad outlines of the character's personality'. If you can't get into the character's head enough to have him react to situations according to his personality, not yours, why bother with a role-playing game at all? It's not all about combat, you know.

 

Of course, I tend to be a 'Plumber' when I play- I'm not satisfied unless my character's personality and background are being explored and developed. Some of the most satisfying RPG moments for me have been when I've had my characters do things that I as the player know are mistakes, because they are mistakes which the character would make due to their personality and Psych Lims.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

My thoughts: if you look upon a given Psych Limit as being a limitation, than you really should pick another. IOW, determine the character's personality, and then choose appropriate psych limits to detail the character's personality.

[zornwil]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

I thought this was quite good, WM.

 

As a side note/nit-pick, I do find players develop their characters into many Psych Lims that weren't on the sheet originally as they flesh out the character. Personally I only formalize the really significant ones, but many stay in play that don't get statted out or written up.

 

What I found most interesting was the comment "...or determines how the character is going to be played for its duration" and invokes the "grim and humorless" example. I have long been dismissive/questioning of many sorts of Disads such as you've addressed as "soft", mainly because of the way the book describes Disads. I think though you've hit on a matter of impact the rules have always ill-addressed and I find that whole issue of "determines how the character is going to be played for its duration" a good point. I think HERO would do well to incorporate such a discussion into its Disads rules, particularly as it much better defines how Disads are actually enacted for the canonical and actual-gameplay characters.

 

PS/EDIT - unfortunately I can't give rep yet but this is on the list

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

I thought this was quite good, WM.

 

As a side note/nit-pick, I do find players develop their characters into many Psych Lims that weren't on the sheet originally as they flesh out the character. Personally I only formalize the really significant ones, but many stay in play that don't get statted out or written up.

 

What I found most interesting was the comment "...or determines how the character is going to be played for its duration" and invokes the "grim and humorless" example. I have long been dismissive/questioning of many sorts of Disads such as you've addressed as "soft", mainly because of the way the book describes Disads. I think though you've hit on a matter of impact the rules have always ill-addressed and I find that whole issue of "determines how the character is going to be played for its duration" a good point. I think HERO would do well to incorporate such a discussion into its Disads rules, particularly as it much better defines how Disads are actually enacted for the canonical and actual-gameplay characters.

 

PS/EDIT - unfortunately I can't give rep yet but this is on the list

 

Thanks.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

An excellent post, Worldmaker. Thoughtful and well stated.

 

As a side note, not specifically limited to the issue of Psych Lims, zornhill's comment about "developing into" many Psych Lims not on the character sheet reminded me of our group's "three session" rule. In deference to the fact that, sometimes, one finds that a character in play develops "a life of his own" and suggests changes never anticipated, we allow for wholesale changes - with GM approval - up to the moment where the fourth session begins.

 

This usually involves only minor tweaks in the design of certain powers or a few attributes, as the players settle into the particular use of the new character. On at least a few occassions, however, players have realized that the personality they envisioned for the character won't work or is not quite on spot or is just not nearly as interesting as something that only revealed itself after a session or two of actual play and interaction with others. In these cases, entire Psych and Social Lims have been rewritten to help realize the player's new vision and - I think - this has led to some vastly improved characters.

 

On a related note, has anyone noticed that there are some players who prefer to get many if not most of their disad points from Psych Lims, while others seem to have an almost pathological aversion to them?

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

On a related note' date=' has anyone noticed that there are some players who prefer to get many if not most of their disad points from Psych Lims, while others seem to have an almost pathological aversion to them?[/quote']

 

 

This is something I've noticed. One of the most frequent character construction guidelines seen in Guardians campaigns are "50 point cap per disadvantage category, except Psych Lims, which can go to 75".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

This is something I've noticed. One of the most frequent character construction guidelines seen in Guardians campaigns are "50 point cap per disadvantage category' date=' except Psych Lims, which can go to 75".[/quote']

 

I'm generally inclined to go with a "soft cap" on all disadvantages, but also impose a similar limit for disadvantages derived from one source. This comes frpom a player we once had whom we described as "Mr. Bignose" due t a Joke Character someone once wrote up for him with disad's including (updated to 5th Ed):

 

DF: Always noticed, not concealable, Major Reaction: Big Nose

 

Hunted: 14-; more powerful, NCI, People who hate people with big noses

 

Psych: Common, Total: Hates people who hate people with big noses

 

Psych: Hunts people who hate people with big noses (common, total) - [yes, this was back in the Hunts as a disadvantage days]

 

Enraged: 14/8 - in combat with people who hate people with big noses (common)

 

DNPC: 14-, incomp, young child with big nose taken under his wing

 

Doing the math, and ignoring the stuidity, you should get well over 100 points out of the above. The next line would be

 

DF: Always noticed, not concealable, Major Reaction: Beady Little Eyes

 

With a similar chain to follow.

 

So I might allow someone to exceed the 50 poiint limit on Psych's if he has a wide variety of such disadvantages focusing on different issues. But you don't get to biuild your 150 disadvantage points around a single feature (distinctive or otherwise) of your character, regardless of how many categories that may cross.

[cutsleeve]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

I have to agree with all the rest that this is a very good post. It basically gets down to the root of Psych Lims.

 

The main thing about the Psych Lims I'm a bit reluctant about is that whole Ego roll thing. I do have to say yes it is a good component and should be included but i wouldnt require a player to make the roll if they played up the characters psychological conflict over the decision. people normally become moody, restless, hyper, nervous, aggressive, confrontational, or experiance a different altered mood when they have to make a decision which in some way conflicts with their personality or mannerisms. This should be roleplayed and maybe the GM should think about a 0 point Pysch Lim along the lines of Mood Change Due to Personal Conflict.

 

If someone just goes for the Roll without role playing the conflict then id take that as well your character is beginning to throw off his Pyschological baggage and you should start to pay some experiance every game for paying it off or reducing its effect in some way like buying down the frequency or severity.

 

If the character consistantly violates the Psych Lim without a roll then That signals your character has suffered a Psychological trauma which has rewritten his entire Psychological makeup. Id tell the Player he had a choice play the Pyche Lim or he goes into XP debt because he just totally shrugged off the Pysch Lim or he has suddenly made it less intense.

 

I dont believe in rolling a die and telling the players they cant do what they want. I prefer to tell them they can do whatever they want give them the options and inform them of the outcome of such actions and let them decide what they want their character can do. That way they may complain about the outcome but at least I didnt control their characters actions, they where given choices, and made those choices of their own accord.

 

Hope all that made sense i have a habit of rambling if theirs a good topic.

[lazarus]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

How do we get Steve Long reading this, because that was an awesome post. If FREd didn't have anything like that, then 5ER could really use it.

 

Notably, the "psych lims as personality" bit - I think that was reasonably introduced in Sidekick, though.

 

Laz

[zornwil]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

I'm generally inclined to go with a "soft cap" on all disadvantages, but also impose a similar limit for disadvantages derived from one source. This comes frpom a player we once had whom we described as "Mr. Bignose" due t a Joke Character someone once wrote up for him with disad's including (updated to 5th Ed):

 

DF: Always noticed, not concealable, Major Reaction: Big Nose

 

Hunted: 14-; more powerful, NCI, People who hate people with big noses

 

Psych: Common, Total: Hates people who hate people with big noses

 

Psych: Hunts people who hate people with big noses (common, total) - [yes, this was back in the Hunts as a disadvantage days]

 

Enraged: 14/8 - in combat with people who hate people with big noses (common)

 

DNPC: 14-, incomp, young child with big nose taken under his wing

 

Doing the math, and ignoring the stuidity, you should get well over 100 points out of the above. The next line would be

 

DF: Always noticed, not concealable, Major Reaction: Beady Little Eyes

 

With a similar chain to follow.

 

So I might allow someone to exceed the 50 poiint limit on Psych's if he has a wide variety of such disadvantages focusing on different issues. But you don't get to biuild your 150 disadvantage points around a single feature (distinctive or otherwise) of your character, regardless of how many categories that may cross.

Those are the kinds of Disad lists that bug me and a big reason why I always run lower Disad totals - the core texts also seem to encourage that kind of double-dipping all too often. Abuse notwithstanding, WM has made me rethink Disads though.

[zornwil]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

How do we get Steve Long reading this, because that was an awesome post. If FREd didn't have anything like that, then 5ER could really use it.

 

Notably, the "psych lims as personality" bit - I think that was reasonably introduced in Sidekick, though.

 

Laz

Steve reads all his PMs. If someone's going to, great, I'm glad to do so if "delegated" but he's an avid reader and doesn't play favorites, so don't feel like I would carry additional weight.

[st barbara]

Re: Psychological Limitations and You

 

To "Zornwill" Interesting point about characters "developing"psych lims that weren't in the original character concept. "St Barbara"has sort of developed a psych lim of" ëxtremly loyal to /protective of teammates"but, because we now haven't played for a LONG time I haven't really had a chance to do anything with it. (The reason we haven't played is because our referee is busy "rewriting"the rules; which aren't really as similar to the original "Champions"rules as I might like). With any luck we will restart sometime soonish and I can find out how the pdych lims will be used in the future. (I'm not holding my breath though !)