Disadvantages giving xp

[Greatwyrm]

I had seen previously in Spycraft, and now Mutants & Masterminds 2e, a method for disadvantages giving extra xp instead of some bonus up front. I was wondering if anyone had tried something like this or had an idea for how to do it.

 

Off hand, I was thinking (Disad. Value / 5) bonus xp points per adventure the Disadvantage comes up in, with a limit of each Disadvantage only being awarded once per adventure. Again, that's instead of the extra points you'd normally get at character creation for taking the Disadvantage in question.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Could you give a "for instance"?

[Greatwyrm]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Let's say you've got a 5pt Distinctive Feature. Normally, you'd get 5 extra points at character generation. In this method, you'd still have the disadvantage, you'd just get 1 bonus xp in any adventure where it actually affected you somehow. (e.g. You have a tatoo on your hand. The police are after you and have a description of a man with the same tatoo.) If it was harder to conceal (10 pts - tatoo on the face maybe) you'd get 2 bonus xp if it came up in the adventure.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Hm. Interesting concept, though I'm not sure I'll implement it. I kind of prefer making statements like this:

 

"3xp for everybody except Bob, who only gets 2."

"Why do I only get 2?"

"Because your character sheet says 'Protective of Innocents' and you threw a grenade into a shopping mall."

 

(For the record, this is a true story.)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Hm. Interesting concept, though I'm not sure I'll implement it. I kind of prefer making statements like this:

 

"3xp for everybody except Bob, who only gets 2."

"Why do I only get 2?"

"Because your character sheet says 'Protective of Innocents' and you threw a grenade into a shopping mall."

 

(For the record, this is a true story.)

My version of that would have gone a little differently. Everyone else would get what they individual deserved, and Bob would get 0 plus have a future of being hunted as a wanted man to look forward to.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

My version of that would have gone a little differently. Everyone else would get what they individual deserved' date=' and Bob would get 0 plus have a future of being hunted as a wanted man to look forward to.[/quote']

I think the only time that Disadvantages should effect Experience is in the opposite situation.

 

Physical Limitatation: Slow Learner (All The Time; Major)

Player Earns 1 Less XP Per Game

[DrFurious]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

The Burning Wheel system actually takes a different approach where you obtain negative traits (i.e. disadvantages) that if they complicate matters (and hence make the story interesting) then you obtain artha (an experience award). It's a different way of looking at the situation and not without some value. How often do you find a GM attempting to force a player to roleplay out the character's disadvantage?

[incrdbil]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

I think the only time that Disadvantages should effect Experience is in the opposite situation.

 

Physical Limitatation: Slow Learner (All The Time; Major)

Player Earns 1 Less XP Per Game

 

Other than at gunpoint, or for a one shot game, do you imagine anyone evertaking that disadvantage?

[Narratio]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

I can see a GM giving a player a present of a few extra points but not telling him what the disadvantage is. But I used to run games where I only handed out the points, never told them what the points were for. I made for fun in the pub later when we were discussing the evenings play.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Other than at gunpoint' date=' or for a one shot game, do you imagine anyone evertaking that disadvantage? [/quote']

Yes.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Of course the system for a disadvantage for lower growth rate is best if you allow them to go above normal starting rates.

[zornwil]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Tesuji's written a bit on this idea:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=820064&postcount=18

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=414950&postcount=10

[Dust Raven]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

I'm not too keen on the idea of getting more xp later for a disad. There are several problems with it when taken along side the rest of the Hero System. First, you end up with some characters developing faster than others because they took a Disadvantage. Not only does this sound backward, it's not fair. Unless everybody takes the same or similar Disad, which in itself is sometimes not fair or practical. Second, sometimes a Disad comes into play without the player's knowledge. Behind the scenes, it was the player's hunted that tipped off the villains to one of the hero's vulnerabilities, or some innocent bystandard recognizes the hero's distinctive feature but doesn't say anything (yet). Maybe some spiteful ex-girlfriend spills your secret ID to a journalist, but the journalist knows you personally and hasn't decided whether or not to print the story. You can't really hand out extra XP in these cases, even though the character would have earned it.

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Who sets up the scenario to ensure that a player's disad is taken advantage of? The GM.

 

It comes down to being a variation of the fact that the GM has to make sure everyone is equally contributing (or at least contributing to the level they want).

 

Disads switch to "plot hooks to make the GM's life easier", and the GM can make sure that a scenario gives opportunities for everyone to play up their disadvantages. An extra challenge for the players to overcome.

 

One player can have fifty disads and another one can have only one, but it's not likely that the GM is going to have all fifty of them come into play at once. Look at it this way, how often has Superman had to deal with the problem of his vulnerability to magic and his vulnerability to Kryptonite at once? Yes, Spiderman has a very large rogue's gallery, but how often do all of his enemies come into play all at once?

[Black Rose]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

I rather like the idea of Disads giving XP during the campaign as opposed to character creation; I like the way we do it now, too, don't get me wrong. I think you'd want to place a cap on how many XP could be gained this way - don't want to unintentionally boost anyone faster than the others. I'd recommend a cap of +2 or +3, maybe higher if your game runs to higher XP handouts.

 

You might also want to look at specific handouts aside from XP - Rep, Contacts, Favors, +1 to a skill due to extensive training, whatever.

 

You'd want to make sure the players know that not every Disad is going to be quite point-worthy; PsychLim: Schmoozes Women (com, mod) might be worth -10 points normally, but you're not going to get a single XP until this becomes a disad that makes the game more fun for at least the GM, if not everyone. The point of this thing is to have fun, right?

 

Hey, that's it! The point of this whole thing is to have fun, right!?! So, reward the PCs who, through roleplay and character design, made the game more fun for everyone.

[Mentor]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

As I have mentioned in other threads, one of my favorite things about Hero is that by getting most of your points up front, depending on specific campaigns, of course, is that the system does away with the requirement of starting the game as a snot nosed fifteen year old with cast off leather armor, a pimply faced apprentice magician with three spells and a loaf of bread in his pouch or a shirtless, avaricious teenaged vagabond with a rusty knife and lust for the possesions of other.

 

I am a big fan of Hero system letting you play already successful characters with an effective and often superior set of characteristics, skills, abilities and equipment. Thus in most cases, Disads providing a system for how the PC is going to be really good one day is less important to my approach than how good they are now.

 

There is nothing wrong with beginner character campaigns, but they are not my cup of tea.

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Er, Mentor, having Disadvantages giving xp instead of starting character points has absolutely nothing to do with how powerful starting characters are. If you don't have 200 + 150 cp characters, you just start with 350 cp characters. It's all up to the GM and the players and how powerful they want to start out with.

[Gunrunner]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

The best implementation of a system that ties together disadvantages and experience is from an rpg called the Riddle of Steel. I've been thinking of ways to convert it to Hero. This is my second favorite rpg with Hero being the first. It's very swords & sorcery - like, and with an amazingly realistic and deadly combat system.

 

Instead of psychological limitations, it has "spiritual attributes". These range in number from 1 die to 5 dice, and can be added to your dice pool as a bonus when performing an action related to that spiritual attribute. For example: If one of your character's spiritual attributes was "hatred of the Prince", any action he takes against him would receive a bonus equal to the magnitude of that spiritual attribute. Whenever your character acts in the interests of his spiritual attribute and puts himself in danger by doing so or roleplays it well, he gains an extra die in that spiritual attribute. Any dice in spiritual attributes can be exchanged permanently for "character points" to improve your character's skills, attributes, powers, etc. The most dice a character can have in an individual spiritual attribute is 5. Any more gained beyond this must go towards character advancement.

 

Here's a link if anyone's interested in downloading the free rules-light version of the game to get a better idea: http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/support/

 

I was thinking of something along the lines of giving characters overall skill levels with a limitation on when they can be used. This limitation of course would represent the psychological disadvantage or spiritual attribute of which I'd try to emulate.

[archermoo]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

How often do you find a GM attempting to force a player to roleplay out the character's disadvantage?

 

I generally haven't had that problem. Sometimes with new players I've had them take disads that they weren't really planning on/interested in actually playing, but in general most of the people that I've played with use the disads that they take to help define who the character is to them. So they specifically do roleplay their disads because they are integral to the character.

 

But then again, I've also played with a lot of people that take disads specifically so that the GM would have a nice juicy plot hook to hoist their character on. I've been known to do that myself for that matter...

 

[tesuji]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Off hand, I was thinking (Disad. Value / 5) bonus xp points per adventure the Disadvantage comes up in, with a limit of each Disadvantage only being awarded once per adventure. Again, that's instead of the extra points you'd normally get at character creation for taking the Disadvantage in question.

 

you are missing the point or at least mostly so.

 

the main advantage of "pay-when-hurt" disads over "loan shark" disads is the advantage of HINDSIGHT over FORESIGHT.

 

If you base the payoff on "how much i charged for the lim at chargen" then you are basing most of it on FORESIGHT... a guess of how much the disad will be worth.

 

Thats not all that much better than as it is now.

 

Instead, set the payoff on "how bad was the disad impacting the character tonight?" Then you have PAYOFF ~ PAIN and everything decided after the fact, with HINDSIGHT, where you can look and see "well this happened and that happened and ..."

 

i would say something like (with X being your normal XP award per session...)

 

+1/4 X for a small deficit, like a surprised setup or moments when the character isn't prepared at the start of a fight due to his disad. Say as a rough rule of thumb he was delayed 1-2 phases at the start of the combat.

 

+1/2 X if the character's performance in the scenario was NOTICEABLY impaired and he clearly underperformed compared to the others. Say as a rough rule of thumb he was inactive or ineffective during 1/3 of the combat OR had his powers reduced by 1/3. ("Due to his claustrophobia making him fly around instead of down the narrow shaft, hawkboy lost 3 phases in the 10 phase fight.")

 

+1 X for cases where the character was seriously dropped in effectiveness and was mostly ineffective, like being out for most of the fight, powers dropped by 2/3, or lost 2/3 or more phases.

 

Now, this gets to the root of the issue and spells out something important... a disad you can work around without noticeable loss doesn't count for much. you are rewarded for actual payoff in play of the lim, not for your picking a lim which provides "clever" workarounds more often than not.

 

So if hawkboy had went desolid and flew thru the floors and lost no time on account of his avoidance of the shaft, thats not worth as much as if he flies around losing several rounds. he might get the 1/4 bonus if maybe the lost end for the desolid ended up being trouble.

 

Simple summary...

 

base the payoff on the actual impact seen in play using HINDSIGHT, not on your guesstimation madev at campaign start of the impact.

[DrFurious]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

I generally haven't had that problem. Sometimes with new players I've had them take disads that they weren't really planning on/interested in actually playing, but in general most of the people that I've played with use the disads that they take to help define who the character is to them. So they specifically do roleplay their disads because they are integral to the character.

One might argue that the players should be defining the integral parts of their character regardless of any up-front point award. I've had situations where players are scrambling to get some disadvantages just to reach the max points from disadvantages. If they don't then they'll be short of points when compared with other players - the character generation portion of the game kinda becomes a competition. which doesn't really sit well with me.

 

One problem I have with certain disadvantages is that it's encumbant on someone to make sure that they are entered into play. A lot of the psychological disadvantages are like this. Sure, if you have good players this isn't an issue but you can't guarantee that all your players will be good ones. If the player doesn't do this, then what happens? The disad is removed and the points need to be adjusted or a new disad is brought up (which can again deferr the problem).

 

Another one is Hunteds. They can introduce a lot into the game: the player is telling the GM that he want's stories involving this hunted, the GM has a plot hook to use for that character, etc. But what if the hunted sub-plot doesn't mesh well with the GMs plans for the campaign? Does this just become free points for the PC? Does the GM run a game with NPCs that he's forced to do so since the player took them as a Hunted? What about other NPC villians that complicate the PCs lives - they're effectively hunteds but they don't appear on the sheet. Does this add points to the characters? What if the hunted is killed? Are points removed? Do you have to come up with another hunted? IMO, this opens too many questions on what should strictly be a matter of story and not mechanics.

 

Recently, I'm favoring game mechanics that reinforce behavior for players. Disadvantages should have specific game effects (modifications to dice totals, defenses, earning of experience). Ones that don't, are really just for flavor - much like the role of defining special effects for powers. This reduces the potential for the player or GM to ignore them. They have a straight mechanical effect which you apply when the situation comes up during play. This still suffers from the requirement that the situation needs to occur but it is better than the other disads. What I do object to is that requirement that the GM needs to work this element into the story to make the disad actually limiting. The presence of that kind of disad actually makes the GMs job just a bit harder by adding another requirement to his list.

 

A point in this thread is that we're talking about Disadvantages giving rewards - namely xp. As others have pointed out, this can be problemantic. There is the speed of advancement, lack of knowledge or control when the disadvantage comes into play, and others. I'd suggest that we really need another reward other than xp. Since many of these disadvantages can complicate a situation for a PC (and hence make the game more interesting) there should be a reward to the player to help him influence the story. Some inspiration can be taken from the fate points in FATE, Drama point from Buffy/Angel, or artha awards from Burning Wheel.

 

Imagine applying such concepts to a superhero genre - the saving of innocents and letting the bad guy get away. In the standard approach you'd have the heros rush over to protect the innocents because 'my disad says so' or because that's the way they've envisioned the character. Not a problem with the good roleplayer but with a take-advantage-of-the-system kinda guy, not so much.

 

Now, if there was a reward mechanic: the PC has the Protective of Innocents trait. The player makes the choice to protect the innocents and let the villian get away, hence complicating the situation (but making the story interesting) - he gets a hero point that he can spend later (e.g. change die rolls to create a heroic scene rather than hoping for a random result). The less noble player might very well do the same but his motivation might be to accumulate the hero points because it makes his character more powerful and competent. The end result is the same - the character saves the innocents and the genre conventions are maintained. So long as the player's choice makes things harder for his character and the game more interesting - he should be rewarded right then and there. If the player frequently makes the choices that are counter to this trait - then it never really was descriptive of his character AS DEFINED BY PLAY. No problem, he hadn't gotten points at creation for taking that trait anyways and hasn't gotten hero points during play. A concensus could be reached that the appropraite trait for his pc would be Disregards Innocents in Danger and the Protective of Innocents traits is changed. The above can also simulate how characters can evolve during gameplay. The comics and books are filled with stories about characters who evolve.

 

I think I've rambled on enough now.

 

But then again, I've also played with a lot of people that take disads specifically so that the GM would have a nice juicy plot hook to hoist their character on. I've been known to do that myself for that matter...

 

 

Really. In such a situation, would you consider paying points to have such a plot hook for your character?

[archermoo]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

One might argue that the players should be defining the integral parts of their character regardless of any up-front point award. I've had situations where players are scrambling to get some disadvantages just to reach the max points from disadvantages. If they don't then they'll be short of points when compared with other players - the character generation portion of the game kinda becomes a competition. which doesn't really sit well with me.

 

Never really noticed it becomming a competition. But then again, I've played characters with less than the maximum allowed amount of disads, as have players in several of my campaigns. In general, the characters did quite well. In fact, there isn't much difference in that and buying off disads after the start of the campaign. And for that matter, I and several of the people I've played with over the years have taken disads over the maximum allowed for no points, because they made sense for the character.

 

I think it also helped that I have generally played either 200 + 150 disads or 250 +100 disads for superhero games for quite some time.

 

One problem I have with certain disadvantages is that it's encumbant on someone to make sure that they are entered into play. A lot of the psychological disadvantages are like this. Sure' date=' if you have good players this isn't an issue but you can't guarantee that all your players will be good ones. If the player doesn't do this, then what happens? The disad is removed and the points need to be adjusted or a new disad is brought up (which can again deferr the problem). [/quote']

 

Another one is Hunteds. They can introduce a lot into the game: the player is telling the GM that he want's stories involving this hunted, the GM has a plot hook to use for that character, etc. But what if the hunted sub-plot doesn't mesh well with the GMs plans for the campaign? Does this just become free points for the PC? Does the GM run a game with NPCs that he's forced to do so since the player took them as a Hunted? What about other NPC villians that complicate the PCs lives - they're effectively hunteds but they don't appear on the sheet. Does this add points to the characters? What if the hunted is killed? Are points removed? Do you have to come up with another hunted? IMO, this opens too many questions on what should strictly be a matter of story and not mechanics.

 

Never really had the problem with psych lims you talk about. And with hunteds that is easy. If the hunted doesn't work within the framework of the campaign planned by the Ref, you say no when the player asks if they can take it. If a character has a hunted that gets killed or otherwise permanently taken out of the game, they have the choice to use XPs to buy that disad off, or replace the disad with a new one.

 

Recently, I'm favoring game mechanics that reinforce behavior for players. Disadvantages should have specific game effects (modifications to dice totals, defenses, earning of experience). Ones that don't, are really just for flavor - much like the role of defining special effects for powers. This reduces the potential for the player or GM to ignore them. They have a straight mechanical effect which you apply when the situation comes up during play. This still suffers from the requirement that the situation needs to occur but it is better than the other disads. What I do object to is that requirement that the GM needs to work this element into the story to make the disad actually limiting. The presence of that kind of disad actually makes the GMs job just a bit harder by adding another requirement to his list.

 

A point in this thread is that we're talking about Disadvantages giving rewards - namely xp. As others have pointed out, this can be problemantic. There is the speed of advancement, lack of knowledge or control when the disadvantage comes into play, and others. I'd suggest that we really need another reward other than xp. Since many of these disadvantages can complicate a situation for a PC (and hence make the game more interesting) there should be a reward to the player to help him influence the story. Some inspiration can be taken from the fate points in FATE, Drama point from Buffy/Angel, or artha awards from Burning Wheel.

 

Imagine applying such concepts to a superhero genre - the saving of innocents and letting the bad guy get away. In the standard approach you'd have the heros rush over to protect the innocents because 'my disad says so' or because that's the way they've envisioned the character. Not a problem with the good roleplayer but with a take-advantage-of-the-system kinda guy, not so much.

 

Now, if there was a reward mechanic: the PC has the Protective of Innocents trait. The player makes the choice to protect the innocents and let the villian get away, hence complicating the situation (but making the story interesting) - he gets a hero point that he can spend later (e.g. change die rolls to create a heroic scene rather than hoping for a random result). The less noble player might very well do the same but his motivation might be to accumulate the hero points because it makes his character more powerful and competent. The end result is the same - the character saves the innocents and the genre conventions are maintained. So long as the player's choice makes things harder for his character and the game more interesting - he should be rewarded right then and there. If the player frequently makes the choices that are counter to this trait - then it never really was descriptive of his character AS DEFINED BY PLAY. No problem, he hadn't gotten points at creation for taking that trait anyways and hasn't gotten hero points during play. A concensus could be reached that the appropraite trait for his pc would be Disregards Innocents in Danger and the Protective of Innocents traits is changed. The above can also simulate how characters can evolve during gameplay. The comics and books are filled with stories about characters who evolve.

 

I think I've rambled on enough now.

 

I've always seen disads as a reward for creating a character that has more depth than a straight "combat monster". I have generally not seen a need to have some sort of ongoing reward to coerce people into playing their character the way it is written up. Possibly I've just been lucky in the people that I have gamed with. Rarely have I had any problem with someone deciding "Well, I've got Protective of Innocents, but I don't really feel like doing it, and there isn't really any negative in-game for blowing off that disad since I've already got the points, so what the heck..."

 

Really. In such a situation' date=' would you consider paying points to have such a plot hook for your character?[/quote']

 

Never really thought about it before. Hmm, having fewer points to spend on a character for the privilege of having your character messed with by the Ref more than others. Possibly, but it would depend on the circumstance.

[tesuji]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

You'd want to make sure the players know that not every Disad is going to be quite point-worthy; PsychLim: Schmoozes Women (com, mod) might be worth -10 points normally, but you're not going to get a single XP until this becomes a disad that makes the game more fun for at least the GM, if not everyone. The point of this thing is to have fun, right?

 

this is one of the more subtle benefits of the pay-when-pain method over the loan shark.

 

the player knows up front he will only see payoff when the disad actually shows obvious problems created for his character in play.

 

So, IF he wants payoff, its in his best interest to pick disads which will show obvious problems occuring in play.

 

This puts both the players and the Gm on the same page here, both looking at disads for the same perspective: how will this show obvious problems for the character in play.

 

in the loan sharking method, the player gets the payoff up front and then the less problematic the disad shows in actual play the better, so the player's perspective is somewhat at odds with the GM's, as the player is "better off" with disads that don't show as much of a problem.

 

Also, of course, each character isn't "forced" or rather "strongly encouraged" to take the same amount of disads (and often the same within a category) as everyone else. if you want a rather uncomplicated hero, one with say lots of raw power but not the whole history of hunteds and the like, then you can, since disads do not so heavily impact power level.

 

On another subject, the variable rate of advancement, this should not be a serious issue, at least, in supers games. This is for two reasons.

 

First, remember that the characters gaining more points are in fact gaining them for problems which impact their performance in play. Sure he might be 390 cp to your 375 but at the same time he is getting hit with a disad that reduces his capability in some meaningful way. If played/Gmed appropriately, he will have (an example) a couple sessions at an "effective weight" of 350 to your 375, then some at 390 to your 375, etc and it should balance out. The character with fewer or less potent disads is more consistent, while the disad heavy guy is more powerful on his good days and less effective on his bad days. The disads end up actually playing the balancing role for the gradual increase in power.

 

BUT there is the second shoe... with a supergame starting at 350, unless your xp award rate is very high, you wont see a tremendous difference in power level. There just aren't enough Xps given to grossly swing the effect. Now this is considering a two year campaign. If your plan is a 13 year campaign with the same characters... you might want a different award system.

 

BTW, if you want a different award system, don't have disads award xp. Instead set the same system up for ONE SHOT EXPENDABLE LUCK DICE. Rough estimate i would say:

Minor impact on scenario: 1 luck die

Serious impact: reduce efficiency by ~1/3 = 2 luck dice

Major impact: lower efficiency by 2/3 = 3 luck dice.

 

These work just like a normal luck die would except when used they are gone. i encourage the alternate luck die rules as options for these.

 

Whether you make it Xp or luck die, shifting away from loan sharking and foresight to pay-when-pained and hindsight has certainly worked better for me, especially given my choices for scenarios are then no longer driven or even influenced by a need to balance the mechanical disad payoffs.

[DrFurious]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Never really noticed it becomming a competition. But then again, I've played characters with less than the maximum allowed amount of disads, as have players in several of my campaigns.

Perhaps you were just lucky

I'd hope you'd agree that the scenario I outlined could occur with some frequency in other groups. The point being that a mechanical reinforcement could be a better solution rather than having a debate between problem players & GMs on the issue during character creation and during play.

 

Never really had the problem with psych lims you talk about. And with hunteds that is easy. If the hunted doesn't work within the framework of the campaign planned by the Ref, you say no when the player asks if they can take it. If a character has a hunted that gets killed or otherwise permanently taken out of the game, they have the choice to use XPs to buy that disad off, or replace the disad with a new one.

Fair enough. What do you think about having hunteds that aren't on the PC's sheet? You could stat it out as a mystery hunted but not every player wants to have that event on his character. Perhaps a better complication would be along the lines of "Frequent Target of Hunteds". Again, I'm thinking of more GM flexibility and avoiding having to re-calculate points on the character sheet.

I've always seen disads as a reward for creating a character that has more depth than a straight "combat monster". I have generally not seen a need to have some sort of ongoing reward to coerce people into playing their character the way it is written up. Possibly I've just been lucky in the people that I have gamed with.

The difference is that an upfront award is harder to take away than something that is awarded during play. An analogy would be a loan. The bank awards a loan based on payments being received. If the borrower doesn't pay, a procedure can be started to get the money back but the borrower still has had the enjoyment of the funds for a period of time.

 

It doesn't seem that this is an issue with the people you've played with but it can be with some groups. I'm advocating a reward-as-you-play system to avoid hassles and to encourage all spectrum of players to follow the same pattern with a minimum of fuss.

[archermoo]

Re: Disadvantages giving xp

 

Perhaps you were just lucky

I'd hope you'd agree that the scenario I outlined could occur with some frequency in other groups. The point being that a mechanical reinforcement could be a better solution rather than having a debate between problem players & GMs on the issue during character creation and during play.

 

Possibly so. I personally prefer the disad system the way it is, but each to their own. I can see where that type of system might be helpful for some types of players/Refs.

 

Fair enough. What do you think about having hunteds that aren't on the PC's sheet? You could stat it out as a mystery hunted but not every player wants to have that event on his character. Perhaps a better complication would be along the lines of "Frequent Target of Hunteds". Again' date=' I'm thinking of more GM flexibility and avoiding having to re-calculate points on the character sheet.[/quote']

 

I have frequently myself taken mystery disads, including hunted. I have done the same for players in my games.

 

The difference is that an upfront award is harder to take away than something that is awarded during play. An analogy would be a loan. The bank awards a loan based on payments being received. If the borrower doesn't pay' date=' a procedure can be started to get the money back but the borrower still has had the enjoyment of the funds for a period of time. [/quote']

 

I disagree. The few times I've had any problem with someone playing a disad they took, I've told them they either needed to play it or buy it off with either XPs or a new disad. I don't really see that being much different than dealing with players who do the bare minumum to have a disad come up during a game, but complain that they didn't get as big an XP bonus as others. If you have problem players, they will be problems regardless of how you set up the system.

 

It doesn't seem that this is an issue with the people you've played with but it can be with some groups. I'm advocating a reward-as-you-play system to avoid hassles and to encourage all spectrum of players to follow the same pattern with a minimum of fuss.

 

I don't see it really fixing any problems, but then again I haven't really been having the problems that it is designed to prevent, so I'm probably not the best judge.

 

In addition to the problem I mentioned earlier in this post, I can also see it generating the "Well, I'd be getting more disad XPs if you would bring up situations where my disads came up more often" kind of arguments. Unless you told someone ahead of time that their "Protective of Innocents" wouldn't come up as often as someone elses "Afraid of Heights" did, I could even see their point.