Alternative Disadvantage Concept

[prestidigitator]

Re: Alternative Disadvantage Concept

 

We just hated how most WoD players said' date=' "You can't do that. It say, on pg. 784 of the Toreador Handbook that Blah, blah blah must behave blah blah blah and one can do this on thing blah, blah, blah..." It was like you weren't expected to have imagination and tell your own stories... you were supposed to conform to some rules that forced you to buy every book just so it could tell you what to do. BLEH.[/quote']

Agreed. Completely. One of the first things I say in most Chronicles is something like:

I am using the source material out of the main book. I may use some selected bits from other places, but that can be discovered in-game. Forget everything you have learned about the world (and any rules I don't specifically approve) in any Clanbooks, Player's Guides, Modules, or anything else.

EDIT: Oh, and BTW, one of the main gripes I have with 3rd ed. is ALL the source material they threw in. They defined exactly what was happening in every little niche of the world, exactly where the Jyhad/Apocalypse-type storylines were going, etc. IMHO, 2nd ed. was the perfect balance of throwing just enough in to give you something to work with and spark your imagination (while leaving many things beautifully vague and up to interpretation), without railroading you into a particular narrow world setting.

[CourtFool]

Re: Alternative Disadvantage Concept

 

Actually... this is a good point... because self-serving is a disad... when it disadvantages the character.

 

My second paragraph was referring to your concept. Personally, I would feel a little ripped off if I bothered to write in some challenges to my chracter (PIT, PEF and Complications) and someone else basically made their character self-serving and cautious. Maybe self-serving and cautious are bad examples. What I mean is someone who would design their character so they could continue to metagame.

 

Crunchy Disadvantages certainly does not stop metagaming. I am not implying it does. It does give me, as a GM, a guideline for what to expect from the character. I can also call a player on it. As I said, though, I would certainly be willing to give it a try sans any gamists.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Alternative Disadvantage Concept

 

My second paragraph was referring to your concept. Personally, I would feel a little ripped off if I bothered to write in some challenges to my chracter (PIT, PEF and Complications) and someone else basically made their character self-serving and cautious. Maybe self-serving and cautious are bad examples. What I mean is someone who would design their character so they could continue to metagame.

 

Crunchy Disadvantages certainly does not stop metagaming. I am not implying it does. It does give me, as a GM, a guideline for what to expect from the character. I can also call a player on it. As I said, though, I would certainly be willing to give it a try sans any gamists.

 

Metagamers will always find a way to Metagame, regardless of any mechanics used.

 

Same with Powergamers.

 

Or any other type of Gamer...

[zornwil]

Re: Alternative Disadvantage Concept

 

Pretty nice idea, and especially good for points-less games. Not sure if I would adopt this, but it's a worthy thought for some games. For me, for most games, I stay with traditional Disads and like them, but I set the bar for them very low, preferring to just give more points directly and encourage more focused, less points-oriented Disad approaches.

 

On the point of giving XP, I will build in a mechanic in the Cyber Ninja Pirates in Space game (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30212) to directly award players for Disad exercise in play, partly inspired by Tesuji's comments (that's at least where I first remember hearing that idea), but also by Deadlands which has a similar idea and I think works well, particularly, at least, in genres where you really want players to create color and do so rather "brightly" (as opposed to a more simulation-oriented, "let it come into play as it should" or a more gamist "the GM should create the challenges and the player should react").

 

However, in general, as to a point above about giving flat XPs and not using them as rewards, I actually do use them as rewards. I always liked them in the old D&D system, so I have created a more formalized XP award method, along with a "dial setting" so you can make it slow to fast growth. I normally use one of the faster settings myself, but added the slower versions so I could use those in other settings (generally, my favorite long-term game is fast XP growth superheroes, but other settings definitely don't make sense with fast XP growth for my tastes).

 

PS - but meant to add that I also give some XP just for time spent playing, assuming it's "in character" (though I have to admit, I'm so used to players who just do this in general and the issue is such a loaded one anyway that I'd be very hard-pressed to challenge someone and say they don't deserve it - if that were the case, it'd be a more general issue and I'd have to deal with it more as a discussion, not via the gaming mechanics).

[RDU Neil]

Re: Alternative Disadvantage Concept

 

My second paragraph was referring to your concept. Personally, I would feel a little ripped off if I bothered to write in some challenges to my chracter (PIT, PEF and Complications) and someone else basically made their character self-serving and cautious. Maybe self-serving and cautious are bad examples. What I mean is someone who would design their character so they could continue to metagame.

 

Crunchy Disadvantages certainly does not stop metagaming. I am not implying it does. It does give me, as a GM, a guideline for what to expect from the character. I can also call a player on it. As I said, though, I would certainly be willing to give it a try sans any gamists.

 

This is a good point... and in many ways, this idea for disadvantages also works as a "player style test" in a way. If you have a player who tries to metagame these simplified disads... this is a huge red flag that maybe they don't belong in the game! The point here is that such open ended disads should allow players to really put the stuff the WANT on to the character... so if a player is basically saying, "I don't want my character to have any of that disadvantage stuff..." they are really saying, "I don't want to play in this game."

 

That's how I'd take it... give 'em a cookie and show 'em the door!