Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

[archermoo]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Err...I'll answer that with a prediction: cheating scum. 400 vs. over 900? Ran out while the calculator was being excercised? [Had obviously happened in the past to cause this rule?]

 

Well, my assumption too, but I figured since I don't know everything about it I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt...

 

I generally refer to such people as "ex-friends". Again, depending on circumstances.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!

 

Oh, thanks, Alice! I needed that! You're a riot!

 

I mean, just imagine if that _really_ happened........

Why, thankya.

 

Yeah, I'd be amused, at least, if this one was mandatory in all the games I play from here on out. It might get a bit old after the 4 or 500th time I watched a character reduced to a slobbering mess for not paying attention to that rule . . .

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I've got too many reluctant heroes in the group right now.

 

Ugh. Yep; that can be a serious pain.

 

I've run across that a few times myself. (I like the 'town crier' story-- when I find it again, rep to the author!).

 

But I have to confess that I did it once myself. My very first Champions character, who went on to be one of the longest-lived characters I've ever seen in any group, played (at the request of the other players; it was years before I really enjoyed the character myself. I had to grow into him) through eleven campaings, most spanning several game years.

 

But he had a justification:

he was terrified of the publicity. He eventually became 'the indestructable man' planet-juggling brick type. He had a sister of whom he was extremely over-protective (both having gone through several foster homes as children, they were extremely close). And while he prefered anonymity, he was generally recruited through civic pressure. He _wanted_ to help people; he was just afraid that someone might try to take control of him through his sister. As a result, he would have happily shed himself of his power, to protect her.

 

 

Yes, he was a reluctant hero, but unlike many I've run across, he knew in his heart what the 'right' thing to do was, and it took little convincing to bring him around.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

That's how my Reluctant Hero works, Ghost. She is agoraphobic and denies her stance in the world (the GM labled her "The Chosen One From A Thousand Years Hence"). but she won't stop fighting the fight, she'll Say that she'd give her powers up in an instant to lead a 'normal' life, but if the offer were put on the table with any seriousness she would turn it down. It's not that she wants to save anyone (she is an assassin, a stunningly effective one at that), but she knows deep down that it has to be done. And wouldn't trust anyone else to do it right.

 

The game is also bording on a Necessary Evil theme as well.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Very similar indeed, at least in terms of willingness under the reluctance. The brick I was mentioning however (Martin Power, now retired from play and drifting through space), would have traded his powers in an instant to live a quiet private life. In fact, he spent a great deal of time in government laboratories trying to be shed of them (right up until the rest of the group figured out that they were trying to reproduce his powers for a super-soldier project).

 

The reluctant hero, done well, can be fun to play as a role-playing challenge. The trick is balancing it with the willingness to adventure, and not simply becoming a grating complainer.

 

Interesting concept, by the way--

 

the 'necessary evil' or assassination; interesting. Food for thought..... Thanks.

[archermoo]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Very similar indeed, at least in terms of willingness under the reluctance. The brick I was mentioning however (Martin Power, now retired from play and drifting through space), would have traded his powers in an instant to live a quiet private life. In fact, he spent a great deal of time in government laboratories trying to be shed of them (right up until the rest of the group figured out that they were trying to reproduce his powers for a super-soldier project).

 

The reluctant hero, done well, can be fun to play as a role-playing challenge. The trick is balancing it with the willingness to adventure, and not simply becoming a grating complainer.

 

Interesting concept, by the way--

 

the 'necessary evil' or assassination; interesting. Food for thought..... Thanks.

 

Just out of curiousity, what would you have done if the Ref had given the character an in game opportunity to lose all of his powers permanently?

 

I ask because I had a character that didn't even really have much that I had thought of as being a "gimme this and the character is no longer playable" hooks in him. However he was a patriot of his country, which was currently enslaved by invaders. After much adventuring and gaining of power and abilities, he was in the position of being the only person who could unify his people in a serious attempt to overthrow the invaders. And even though he wasn't really the only choice, there were NPCs that were building it up to him as if he was. I looked at the ref and said "You realize that if Brian gets proclaimed Ard-righ of Jara as far as I'm concerned he isn't a PC anymore, right?" "Whaddya mean?" "If you're king, you don't get to adventure anymore. You're much too busy being king. Since I have no interest in roleplaying the day to day decisions of being a king, and the rest of the party certainly doesn't have any interest in sticking around while I'm doing it, as far as I'm concerned my character is about a whisker away from becoming an NPC. Because if he gets the idea that a) he can do the job, and that his people want him to, and c) that no one else can, he'll drop whatever he is doing and take it up without a second thought. How many points do I get for his replacement?"

 

Personally, I'd've happily done it. Brian would've been a great leader of a revolution, and would probably have been a decent king. 'Course it would've screwed up the current plot line. I was never sure if the Ref just wanted to know how I would justify not doing what was being pushed off on me as "the right thing", or if he really thought chasing off after the major bad guy for months at a time was a reasonable thing for a king who is trying to lead a revolution to do.

 

Don't get me wrong, I was (and still am) having a gread deal of fun playing the character. But I try to make sure I stay true to what the character would do.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

the 'necessary evil' or assassination; interesting. Food for thought..... Thanks.

Thanks. She was one of those characters where I created them with intent A and it turns out they were really kind of different from that, very different actually. I had intended to make a "good guy" and ended up with a very amoral person for whom taking a life is as easy as waking up in the morning. Someday I'm going to write out her entire story in the campaign...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

-1DC whenever player quotes Monty Python.

 

Looks like I'll be punching below my weight....

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=842483&postcount=10

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

My characters typically evolve quite a bit during the course of a campaign. Their outlooks change quite a lot, and they tend to undergo personality crises. This will make them, "Reluctant," types at some points, fanatic at times, and neutral at others, depending upon the focus of the campaign.

 

Example: I had a D&D blade master who started as a, "true neutral," worshipper of Tempus. He lived purely for battle and testing his skills. After a time I decided he was gradually shifting in the direction of, "lawful good." Then there came an episode in which he made a pact with Helm ("lawful" god of guardianship and protection) to help defeat another god's Avatar in return for a, "weapon worthy of his skill." When all was done he received no weapon and denounced the gods entirely, deciding that even those that claimed to be most, "lawful," did not keep their word, and it is up to men--not gods--to establish right in the land. So the character threw down his sword and retired, finding a small villiage in which he became lord and protector. After quite some time he returned to adventuring, but he now distrusts and dislikes the gods, their priests, and anything religious. (Yes, he's going to, "Hell," in the D&D/FR sense). He is definitely on the, "good," side and is extremely, unquestionably, "lawful." I normally don't place such personality changes in terms of D&D alignments, but it is pretty fitting in this case.

 

Other characters I have played have started out with very strong goals in mind, become jaded and discouraged, gone through periods of depression, picked up new beliefs, goals, and attitudes, etc.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

My characters typically evolve quite a bit during the course of a campaign. Their outlooks change quite a lot, and they tend to undergo personality crises. This will make them, "Reluctant," types at some points, fanatic at times, and neutral at others, depending upon the focus of the campaign.

 

Example: I had a D&D blade master who started as a, "true neutral," worshipper of Tempus. He lived purely for battle and testing his skills. After a time I decided he was gradually shifting in the direction of, "lawful good." Then there came an episode in which he made a pact with Helm ("lawful" god of guardianship and protection) to help defeat another god's Avatar in return for a, "weapon worthy of his skill." When all was done he received no weapon and denounced the gods entirely, deciding that even those that claimed to be most, "lawful," did not keep their word, and it is up to men--not gods--to establish right in the land. So the character threw down his sword and retired, finding a small villiage in which he became lord and protector. After quite some time he returned to adventuring, but he now distrusts and dislikes the gods, their priests, and anything religious. (Yes, he's going to, "Hell," in the D&D/FR sense). He is definitely on the, "good," side and is extremely, unquestionably, "lawful." I normally don't place such personality changes in terms of D&D alignments, but it is pretty fitting in this case.

 

Other characters I have played have started out with very strong goals in mind, become jaded and discouraged, gone through periods of depression, picked up new beliefs, goals, and attitudes, etc.

In other words you roleplay actual people. kudos.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I must admit I tend to be better at caricaturing than role playing, but I like to think I'm getting better. Odd that no one else does...

 

Getting a bit off topic here, but what i tend to do is come up with some behavioural metarules, which are not necessarily obvious on the surface: I'm playing a half-orc monk type character at present and he is a bit of an alcoholic, except when he is on a mission. He is terribly organised in some ways: he lives his life by quite a strict code - but he doesn't articulate the code, and his appearance, speech patterns and personal habits are more like a tramp.

 

I know what he will do and why he will do it in most situations, but his behaviour can seem somewhat contradictory if you don't know the rules. And the point in no one does, except me and the GM (gotta keep 'em sweet).

 

I have to say I like this approach, as the character has more of a feeling of depth. I've seen a lot of detailed characters who are just 2 dimensional, despite the web of interconnnecting story arcs and disadvantages the player wields. Keep it simple. Try to think of 3 or 4 rules your charcter always follows, then try not to be too obvious when you apply them.

 

I'm sorry. No idea what came over me there. Back to the mayhem and Monty Python.....

[Karmakaze]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Ouch! Yeah' date=' I've run into this problem a few times. It's a hard one for me to deal with, as I am generally reluctant to be confrontational (at least on a personal level with friends).[/quote']

 

On the positive side, having been kicked out of one game and been given the clear ultimatum, he has shaped up a bit. So there is hope. It may also have finally gotten through to him when the last incident resulted in me losing my temper in and out of character. (IC, I was the team leader who'd been pushed too far - OOC, He'd put me in a position where I had no choice but to hurt his feeling, and really hate doing that to a friend.) I hardly ever lose my temper.

 

Our regular campaigns have the "three questions" all players must answer:

 

1 - Why is your character a hero

2 - How does your character feel about killing

3 - Why would your character be a member of this group

 

We wound up having to add:

4 - Why would a group want to have you as a member

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I must admit I tend to be better at caricaturing than role playing, but I like to think I'm getting better. Odd that no one else does...

 

Getting a bit off topic here, but what i tend to do is come up with some behavioural metarules, which are not necessarily obvious on the surface: I'm playing a half-orc monk type character at present and he is a bit of an alcoholic, except when he is on a mission. He is terribly organised in some ways: he lives his life by quite a strict code - but he doesn't articulate the code, and his appearance, speech patterns and personal habits are more like a tramp.

 

I know what he will do and why he will do it in most situations, but his behaviour can seem somewhat contradictory if you don't know the rules. And the point in no one does, except me and the GM (gotta keep 'em sweet).

 

I have to say I like this approach, as the character has more of a feeling of depth. I've seen a lot of detailed characters who are just 2 dimensional, despite the web of interconnnecting story arcs and disadvantages the player wields. Keep it simple. Try to think of 3 or 4 rules your charcter always follows, then try not to be too obvious when you apply them.

 

I'm sorry. No idea what came over me there. Back to the mayhem and Monty Python.....

Well put. Most of my starting characters have at least a half page worth of notes on background and personality (often more like a full page and rarely far more), and I do try to keep in mind how this affects their decisions (for all of it, not just when it corresponds with their Disadvantages). I don't codefy this into explicit rules, but that is likely how it ultimately turns out.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

On the positive side, having been kicked out of one game and been given the clear ultimatum, he has shaped up a bit. So there is hope. It may also have finally gotten through to him when the last incident resulted in me losing my temper in and out of character. (IC, I was the team leader who'd been pushed too far - OOC, He'd put me in a position where I had no choice but to hurt his feeling, and really hate doing that to a friend.) I hardly ever lose my temper.

 

Our regular campaigns have the "three questions" all players must answer:

 

1 - Why is your character a hero

2 - How does your character feel about killing

3 - Why would your character be a member of this group

 

We wound up having to add:

4 - Why would a group want to have you as a member

Hell yeah! I think we should make it an application process with resume!!! That'll show 'em!

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I think GMs really need to work out an explicit list of dos and don'ts for character design:

 

Don't:

1. Have a character who is a jerk

No one likes to work with a jerk. Realistically, the rest of the team would ask said person to clean up their act or leave. So will the players controlling them. Characters that annoy the GM and the players will be tossed out of the team if they refuse to clean up their act, period.

 

2. Have a character who doesn't want to be a hero

There is a difference between 'reluctant' or 'conflicted' and 'unwilling' or 'unmotivated'. No one wants to work with someone who has to be prodded to do the slightest thing. Realistically, they would be told to clean up their act or leave the team. Unmotivated characters will annoy the GM and the other players and will either have to have a change of light or be tossed off the team.

 

3. No loners or loose cannons.

Loners and loose cannons both annoy the heck out of a team. To repeat a point, no one wants to have a loner or a loose cannon on the team. Again, either the character will have to clean up their act and become a team player, or they will be tossed off the team.

 

4. Secret IDs that don't do anything

In general, if you have a secret ID and you want points for that secret ID, you need to put effort in to that secret ID to make it part of the character. A secret ID that just collects points and does nothing for the GM will annoy the GM considerably.

 

5. Ideologies and methodologies wildly different from the rest of the team

While variety is the spice of life, there are limits. If most of the team has a code versus killing, having a casual killer on the team isn't going to work out. Realistically, while teams accept a certain range of views, there are limits to what they will accept.

 

Acceptable:

1. Socially clueless characters or dark and moody characters

One can be socially inept without being annoying. The brilliant inventor who is more adept with machines than with people, well meaning but not very good at dealing with people. Likewise the grim dark avenger who is somewhat short on polish and even politeness but nonetheless does not go out of his way to annoy people is also acceptable.

 

2. Reluctant heroes and conflicted heroes

As long as they don't angst too much. That tends to be annoying. It's fine for your character to not be happy with their lifestyle or what they are forced to do, as long as they go off and do it. The important fact here is that the character's don't have to be talked into going. It's perfectly fine to have a roleplaying session to talk them into joining the team, but once they are on, they have to carry their weight without being ordered into it. They can be unhappy or whatever about it, as long as they don't whine too much about it. Once Bilbo agreed to go, he carried his weight.

 

3. Antisocial characters who nonetheless work with others

Your character doesn't have to hang out and go bowling with the other characters after work. If they're quiet and keep to themselves and don't talk much, but quietly carry their weight of the load and do keep other characters informed as to what they are up to professionally, that's fine. The important thing is that they work in a group.

 

4. Characters whose secret IDs are functional.

To use an example, the only reason that Batman has the secret identity of Bruce Wayne is that it gives him access to people and places and things that Batman cannot, or at least not without attracting attention. Batman otherwise has little use for Bruce Wayne as a person. A grim avenger who bothers to maintain a secret ID should list how functionally they use their secret ID as a tool to complement their superhero's work. If they can't then realistically there's no point for them to have one.

 

5. Ideologies and methods that vary only somewhat

Superman and Batman have different methodologies, but in the end, Batman isn't a killer and (in most incarnations) there are limits to how far he will go to get information out of a subject. Superman doesn't like the fear and intimidation tactics that Batman does, but Batman most of the time manages to keep within the limits that Superman has.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Don't:

Totally. For all of the above. The first time I had someone else on the team tell me, "Well, I built her so she could go either way . . . she could be a hero OR villain, depending on what happens," I could only smack my forehead and shake my head. I then contemplated having my mentalist mind control her into behaving.

 

She ended up kidnapping a town's worth of children, and left the game. Her defense at doing something that appalled the entire team so was, "The GM never SAID he wanted us to be total good guys! It's mixed messages!"

 

The GM should not have to SAY, "I want heroes in this game."

[radioKAOS]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Totally. For all of the above. The first time I had someone else on the team tell me, "Well, I built her so she could go either way . . . she could be a hero OR villain, depending on what happens," I could only smack my forehead and shake my head. I then contemplated having my mentalist mind control her into behaving.

 

She ended up kidnapping a town's worth of children, and left the game. Her defense at doing something that appalled the entire team so was, "The GM never SAID he wanted us to be total good guys! It's mixed messages!"

 

The GM should not have to SAY, "I want heroes in this game."

 

lmao, nice...

 

So yeah, this is a superHERO game....

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Hmmm...Social limitation: Knowing when to STOP role playing.

 

Whilst we all need enough to live and prosper, too much of anything will kill ya stone dead, and the same is true of ost games. IMO.

 

Bite your tongue!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Designed to deal with both the limelight hog and the player-with-no-friends who won't go home at the end of the evening

 

Ah... nevermind then.

[garou]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Totally. For all of the above. The first time I had someone else on the team tell me, "Well, I built her so she could go either way . . . she could be a hero OR villain, depending on what happens," I could only smack my forehead and shake my head. I then contemplated having my mentalist mind control her into behaving.

 

. . .

 

The GM should not have to SAY, "I want heroes in this game."

I have actually built and played characters who could have been a hero or a villain. They usually had some mighty strong temptation that could lead to a fall from the path of the hero, and they might slip from time to time, but they kept trying to do good in spite of themselves.

 

IN several darker, "realistic" fantasy games, I have had several characters who were, technically, evil, in neutral campaigns. Those are few and far between, and in each case, I was prepared to write them out of the game as soon as the other PCs figured it out.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I can understand that. I, myself, had an angsty character once who very nearly joined up with the bad guys before the game dissolved. But that was because these GMs delighted in yanking the rug out from under this PC; the only stable, consistent element in the game was the villains, who were built to be sympathetic.

 

It was that this was NOT a neutral game. This GM, historically, was looking for heroes with strong roots in herodom, usually by legacy. She built her character as a chaotic neutral (to borrow D&D terms) faerie, seemingly just to make the GM cry when she did something like what she pulled.

 

This group actually pulled that a lot; coming up with character concepts JUST to make the GM cry. In case anyone wonders why Josh is always looking for players or GMs when we HAVE a gaming group . . . that's precisely why. He doesn't put up with that crap.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

I have actually built and played characters who could have been a hero or a villain. They usually had some mighty strong temptation that could lead to a fall from the path of the hero, and they might slip from time to time, but they kept trying to do good in spite of themselves.

 

IN several darker, "realistic" fantasy games, I have had several characters who were, technically, evil, in neutral campaigns. Those are few and far between, and in each case, I was prepared to write them out of the game as soon as the other PCs figured it out.

 

In the campaign I'm taking a break from, one of the PCs is an evil villain. He just happens to have some built in weaknesses (like a strict code of honor) that force him to do good in the world in spite of himself. So he always seems to turn out the hero.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Just out of curiousity' date=' what would you have done if the Ref had given the character an in game opportunity to lose all of his powers permanently?[/quote']

 

Ah! Excellent question, Archermoo!

 

I would have jumped on it in an instant, of course. It was character conception, and it also fit well with my desires at the time. Martin Power had been a quick 'fill-in' when I first set down to learn HERO. After over an hour of me not really 'getting' character generation without dice, the GM told me point-blank 'This group needs a muscle man (at that time, "Brick" was a published NPC), and you can make one for now real easy and fast, and make another character later.'

 

So with a bit of help, I dumped 250 points into STR and oodles of DEFand the two-dimensional strongman was created. Unfortunately, my GM was also new to being behind the screen, so his adventures weren't particularly balanced. Power got a lot of spot light time, so I began to develop the personality of reluctance, etc, as a demotivator for him, allowing the other players first crack at any situation, and reserving myself only for clean-up as a last resort. After all, as soon as I learned the system, I was going to make a 'better' character, right?

 

As the character developed over the next few adventures, the other players really enjoyed him. I don't know if it was the character, or the fact that I was not shy about the 'role playing' part of role playing, which I feel adds a bit more enthusiasm to any group, but for whatever reasons, the character was wildly popular with the other players, and even as they shed old characters and made new ones, (and I finally made about six new characters, but everytime I wished to play one, the rest of the group would pshaw my choice and request Power), I was still soldiering on with that insty-brick. Frankly, there were times when I suspected they simply wanted him for the easy tactics: "Quick! Hide behind Power!" and "My God! He soaked that explosion like it was a tanning lamp! Get him, Power!"

 

He was revised through all the editions up to 4 (we didn't use all of 4e), and evolved to a level at which he was simply no fun to play anymore (God vs. Joey the Shank kind of thing), but he was still requested.

 

Frankly, even though I had belatedly come to enjoy that character

 

=== aside: the attempts to lose his powers were a sincere effort to remove him from the second and third campaigns. I eventually began to enjoy the personality of the character, but part of the conception that had evolved was a fear of his powers. He felt that being, realistically, the world's only indestructable agent, and the most physically powerful being known, that simply existing put his sister in danger. He was always afraid-- deeply afraid-- that someone would discover and harm his sister as a means of controlling him. At that point, the choice would be either let his sister come to harm-- inconcievable for him-- or do harm to others, possibly on a global scale. He desparately wanted to be rid of his powers. Not taking the chance would not have been faithful to the character.====

 

 

As the character grew and grew and spent more and more years worth of experience, he was again becoming a Drain: Duke's fun (seriously, Archermoo-- he had a 385 STR, for Pete's sake! You can't pound a villain with a 77d6 attack; you just can't!), and something had to be done.

 

So one evening, after a cliff-hanger session that left the character stranded in a space craft in the asteroid belts of Minerva (thank you, JP Hogan , I pulled the GM aside and hatched out a plan.

 

Power had already cushioned the craft from several asteroid strikes, and that gave the team an idea. In a nutshell, once the craft drifted near a large enough asteroid to provide resistance enough, Power would brace against it and hurl the ship back toward earth, reducing the amount of time it would take rescuers to reach the ship, thus allowing the crew to be saved. Power could be rescued at a later date.

 

I met with the GM and begged, pleaded, and nearly whined, and he finally agreed to rule that no asteroid large enough to be unaffected by the reaction was within reach of the characters. Power pushed off from an asteroid, but when the second ship was dispatched to find him, he had drifted far enough out into the solar system as to be effectively undetectable. He wasn't coming back, and frankly, I was glad. It took about fifteen years, but I knew that I was finally shed of a character that I never really had appreciated properly anyway. I think the character was glad, too. After all, no one would ever be able to use him to bring harm to anyone else-- he was beyond access.

 

And for the next two campaigns, there were still occasional survey missions to recover him or his body (to this day, all of our genres use continuing settings; it's easier for the players, and lets the characters have a visible long-term effect for the 'next generation'). One succeeded (former player turned GM), but I steadfastly refused to play him again. "You found him; he's yours. Far as I'm concerned, he's a retired NPC doing things that I know nothing about."

 

It's enough to drive you nuts.

 

 

Short answer:

 

I would have jumped on it like a shot. It was the single most important thing in the world to the character, and I alread had other characters I was itching to try out.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

Almost forgot--

 

that whole "he's your PC now" exchange got the 'rescue' ret-conned out of the setting. Thank God!

[archermoo]

Re: Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

 

--snippage of a great answer--

 

Cool.

 

I'd assumed that you would've gone through with it, but just wanted to check. And was in fact hoping for the verbose type of answer I got.