Using Supervillain Psych Lims

[Alverant]

In the villain write ups (especially mystical bad guys) I often see psych lims like "Irredeamably Evil". So how is that limitating? How can that be used against a character like a "Code of Honor"? Do you have NNDs with the defence being "having a spark of goodness in your soul"? Do you bait traps with puppies hoping your evil target will go out of his/her way to kick it? Do you raid a morgue to bait the cannabil you're trying to capture? If a "Casual Killer" is holding hostages, how is it hazardous to the villain? I was under the impression psych lims are meant to impeed a character but I don't see how that works with evil ones.

[Hermit]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Subject to GM intrepetation, but I would portray irredeemibly evil as meaning, among other things, that the NPC has a real blind spot when it comes to the noblier virtues. Being totally selfish, villain might have trouble realizing concepts like self sacrafice, courage, and never giving up. Any hero exhibiting these traits when in his opinion they should just be giving up or looking out for their lives, are likely to confuse him. If he fails an ego roll, he might even lose a phase of action.

 

What's more, consistently taking the 'greater evil' option, would also make him rather predictable in the long run.

 

"Overmaster is preparing to fire the Omniwave. Target will either be Ft. Long, or Wattstown! But which one?"

 

"Wattstown."

 

"How do you know?"

"More people.... including more women and children reside there."

"Oh yeah."

[Alverant]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

That gave me an idea, if a villain expects the worst from people then he can be tricked. The "rebel" heroe can stage an arguement with the team leader when the villain is watching ending with "That's it, I'm quitting! You can fight him without my help!" Then the villain wouldn't suspect the rebel sneaking around from behind for a surprise attack.

[Hermit]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

That gave me an idea' date=' if a villain expects the worst from people then he can be tricked. The "rebel" heroe can stage an arguement with the team leader when the villain is watching ending with "That's it, I'm quitting! You can fight him without my help!" Then the villain wouldn't suspect the rebel sneaking around from behind for a surprise attack.[/quote']

 

That might indeed work.

[Chuckg]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Subject to GM intrepetation' date=' but I would portray irredeemibly evil as meaning, among other things, that the NPC has a real blind spot when it comes to the noblier virtues. Being totally selfish, villain might have trouble realizing concepts like self sacrafice, courage, and never giving up.[/quote']

 

The classic literary example is, natch, Lord of the Rings. Sauron's inability to conceive of a mindset that would *not* grasp the One Ring for its power, but would instead seek to remove it from the world, is the reason he lost at a time where he had everything going for him.

 

"He supposes that we are all going to Minas Tirith; for that is what he would himself have done in our place. And according to his wisdom it would have been a heavy stroke against his power. Indeed he is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have /no one/ in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream. In which no doubt you will see our good fortune and our hope. For imagining war he has let loose war, believing that he has no time to waste; for he that strikes the first blow, if he strikes it hard enough, may need to strike no more. So forces that he has long been preparing he is now setting in motion, sooner than he intended. Wise fool. For if he had used all his power to guard Mordor, so that none could enter, and bent all his guile to the hunting of the Ring, then indeed hope would have faded; neither the Ring nor bearer could long have eluded him. But now his eye gazes abroad rather than near his home..."

 

-- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Another way to look at it is that, if the villain is presented with an opportunity to perform a truly evil deed he will be compelled to do so, even if it's not in his best interests. For example, if the villain is in secret ID or working on a covert scheme, he can't resist causing suffering for the sheer joy of it, which may reveal his identity or draw attention to his scheme before he's ready.

[SKJAM!]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Another classic example: the villain is dangling over the Pit of Acid, held up only by the hero's hand. The smart thing to do would be letting the hero pull you to safety, then kill him, but the Irredeemably Evil character will try to kill the hero right then and there.

 

Also, being Irredeemably Evil will mean that certain "heroes" won't hold back against that villain.

 

"Casual Killer" can work against the hostage taker in two ways...

 

1) He casually kills his meat shields when they annoy him, leaving him without hostages.

 

2) The heroes know that he's a Casual Killer and likely to do the first one no matter how good their negotiator is, so they attack immediately, gambling that they can save more hostages that way.

[SatinKitty]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Some utterly evil villains are also clever. If they know they'll die if the hero doesn't save them, they will promise the moon to save their lives. The promise is, of course, a lie. An utterly evil villain won't hesitate to lie to save their life. The smart villain will let the hero save him THEN kill the hero. Chantal, for example's main weapons were her great beauty and feminine wiles. She could probably play the damsel-in-distress in an Oscar-winning way, only to backstab the hero literally and/or figuratively once she knew she was safe and his guard was down. I think that any hero who trusts a villain he is dangling over a cliff is rather foolish if he believes the villain's promises. Especially since the villain can probably safely assume the hero would never actually drop him anyway.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Not sure how this ended up where it did originally, but it belongs here:

 

At least in my case, I often look at NPC Psych Lims as more of a guide to GMing and playing that character, than as something I have to make sure I hammer with NPC with every so often.

 

Of course, I usually roll my eyes at the mindset that demands a strict enforcement of Disadvantages on a hard and fast schedule.

 

"Sorry guys, I know we were left off at a cliffhanger last time we played, and that the space station was about to explode, but since Ultraman's DNPC hasn't come up in 3.25 sessions, we're going to do a flashback today to keep things balanced."

 

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Not sure how this ended up where it did originally' date=' but it belongs here:[/i']

 

At least in my case, I often look at NPC Psych Lims as more of a guide to GMing and playing that character, than as something I have to make sure I hammer with NPC with every so often.

 

Of course, I usually roll my eyes at the mindset that demands a strict enforcement of Disadvantages on a hard and fast schedule.

 

"Sorry guys, I know we were left off at a cliffhanger last time we played, and that the space station was about to explode, but since Ultraman's DNPC hasn't come up in 3.25 sessions, we're going to do a flashback today to keep things balanced."

 

 

Well, what *I* did with 'roll 'em' disadvantages was roll 'em... and then use them as soon as I could think of a good way of doing it, and started foreshadowing it immediately.

 

And if I rolled it AGAIN, well, then they got into even deeper trouble in the mean while.

 

 

Disadvantages should be disadvantageous. That's what they're there for. If you don't believe in using them, don't require them. If you don't like them coming up at the STATED frequency, have the players buy them at lower frequencies ("I know blindness is 'all the time', but I'm going to forget about it 9 sessions out of 10 and treat you like anyone else, so just take it at the uncommon level").

 

The player (or someone) went to the effort of thinking of downsides to the character. They should not be ignored. (Same goes for obscure powers and skills, incidently).

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Well, what *I* did with 'roll 'em' disadvantages was roll 'em... and then use them as soon as I could think of a good way of doing it, and started foreshadowing it immediately.

 

And if I rolled it AGAIN, well, then they got into even deeper trouble in the mean while.

 

 

Disadvantages should be disadvantageous. That's what they're there for. If you don't believe in using them, don't require them. If you don't like them coming up at the STATED frequency, have the players buy them at lower frequencies ("I know blindness is 'all the time', but I'm going to forget about it 9 sessions out of 10 and treat you like anyone else, so just take it at the uncommon level").

 

The player (or someone) went to the effort of thinking of downsides to the character. They should not be ignored. (Same goes for obscure powers and skills, incidently).

 

Blindness isn't an issue, because it is all the time, and it really is an absurd counter-example.

 

Re-read the semi-ficticious quote in my post again, and think about it: you know you've seen people say things like "An 11- Disad that doesn't hinder the character at least once every other session isn't being enforced sufficiently."

 

Yes, disadvantages should be disadvantageous, but really, as a GM, I don't think I need dice to tell me how or when to use them.

 

The very idea of rolling for Disads every game session strikes me as a very Gygaxian, D&D thing to do, along the lines of having a pair of charts in the back of the DM's Guide for coming up with what kind of prostitute the party might run into tonight...

 

I'm not making that up, by the way.

[Badger]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Sadly, he isnt making that up about D&D.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Blindness isn't an issue' date=' because [i']it is[/i] all the time, and it really is an absurd counter-example.

 

Re-read the semi-ficticious quote in my post again, and think about it: you know you've seen people say things like "An 11- Disad that doesn't hinder the character at least once every other session isn't being enforced sufficiently."

 

Yes, disadvantages should be disadvantageous, but really, as a GM, I don't think I need dice to tell me how or when to use them.

 

The very idea of rolling for Disads every game session strikes me as a very Gygaxian, D&D thing to do, along the lines of having a pair of charts in the back of the DM's Guide for coming up with what kind of prostitute the party might run into tonight...

 

I'm not making that up, by the way.

 

Well, an 11- disadvantage is, by definition, one that should come up every second session. That's what the 11- MEANS in the rules.

 

If a player takes a DNPC on an 11-, they have essentially filed a written request to have that NPC show up every second session. Disregarding that doesn't seem like a good thing to do. (And if players aren't taking disadvantages because they want to but because they have to, perhaps you should not be mandating them).

 

If there are rules for something, then using them is something that should be considered seriously, because rules in a good game are created by a group of people with more collective experience than any individual GM.

 

It does not make your game poorer to have to think of ways to work particular NPC's into the upcoming plot. Quite the contrary, the extra layer of complication and thought adds to it, and helps muddy the issue.

 

 

And the Blindness is not an absurd counterexample. They will *be blind* all the time. But someone with allergies (for example) always has the allergies, they just don't _affect them_ all the time.

 

If most of the time you'll just handwave and say "someone describes the visual elements of the scene to you, so don't worry", they are not being limited "all the time".

 

 

If you wish to lower the frequencies, fine... but if a player is expecting to constantly have to deal with something, because that's what the rules say should happen... maybe you should tell them and adjust the numbers on the character sheet to an appropriate level.

 

The point of rules is so that people can know what to expect. If you throw that away, the rules are a waste of time.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Sadly' date=' he isnt making that up about D&D. [/quote']

 

Hey, random prostitute charts can convey the dangers of lecherous behaviour like nothing else... nothing says "don't" like having the chance of your character's winky becoming destined to shrink and drop off being determined only by the cruel, cruel dice...

 

 

(Gygaxian GMing DOES give a certain feel. And I think the 'good' feel it can give is the one where you are not guaranteed to survive, you are actually going to have to work for it, no really, you might lose, it REALLY CAN happen. That strikes me as possibly being good)

[Alverant]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Some utterly evil villains are also clever. If they know they'll die if the hero doesn't save them' date=' they will promise the moon to save their lives. The promise is, of course, a lie. An utterly evil villain won't hesitate to lie to save their life. The smart villain will let the hero save him THEN kill the hero. Chantal, for example's main weapons were her great beauty and feminine wiles. She could probably play the damsel-in-distress in an Oscar-winning way, only to backstab the hero literally and/or figuratively once she knew she was safe and his guard was down. I think that any hero who trusts a villain he is dangling over a cliff is rather foolish if he believes the villain's promises. Especially since the villain can probably safely assume the hero would never actually drop him anyway.[/quote']

 

I think that issue was address in the old "Things I would do if I was an Evil Overlord". The idea was the villian WOULD spare the hero if the hero saved his life. Not out of any higher ideal, simply because it encouraged similar behavior in case the Evil Overlord was ever in danger of imminent death again. Plus occasionally keeping your word keeps those do-gooders guessing.

 

But your right, being totally evil and the hero knowing you're totally evil is a disadvantage then. Heroes are smart too, if they know the villian would attack the hero the second the villian was safe, then the hero is more likely set up a video camera and a lawn chair then help. I'd say you not only need a total "Code vs Killing" but a similar disad to intentionally rescue someone you know is so evil. Unless you have an alternate reason for saving the villain like he has information you need or you want to bring him to justice.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Well, an 11- disadvantage is, by definition, one that should come up every second session. That's what the 11- MEANS in the rules.

 

If a player takes a DNPC on an 11-, they have essentially filed a written request to have that NPC show up every second session. Disregarding that doesn't seem like a good thing to do. (And if players aren't taking disadvantages because they want to but because they have to, perhaps you should not be mandating them).

 

If there are rules for something, then using them is something that should be considered seriously, because rules in a good game are created by a group of people with more collective experience than any individual GM.

 

It does not make your game poorer to have to think of ways to work particular NPC's into the upcoming plot. Quite the contrary, the extra layer of complication and thought adds to it, and helps muddy the issue.

 

 

And the Blindness is not an absurd counterexample. They will *be blind* all the time. But someone with allergies (for example) always has the allergies, they just don't _affect them_ all the time.

 

If most of the time you'll just handwave and say "someone describes the visual elements of the scene to you, so don't worry", they are not being limited "all the time".

 

 

If you wish to lower the frequencies, fine... but if a player is expecting to constantly have to deal with something, because that's what the rules say should happen... maybe you should tell them and adjust the numbers on the character sheet to an appropriate level.

 

The point of rules is so that people can know what to expect. If you throw that away, the rules are a waste of time.

 

 

IMO, Disads are there to tell me something about the character as much as anything. They're a GMing resourse, not a collection of handcuffs and straightjackets.

 

If every PC has an 11- DNPC, which is entirely possible in many campaignes, and I run by the strict definition you propose, then the only thing that goes on in the game will be a continuous stream of imperilled or otherwise "disadvantaging" DNPCs.

 

If it were up to me, I'd entirely eliminate the rolls from Disads like DNPC, just to deprive this Gygaxian accountant-style gaming theory of the support that the rolls give it.

 

 

As for the blindness, I've had to handle that before, just not in HERO. Like any other Disad/Flaw/whatever, I didn't treat it as something I have to make the player pay for, I treat it as a fact that needs to be kept in mind and as an opportunity for good roleplaying and story. It's a problem because it's a problem, not because I go out of my way to make sure the "debt" is called in.

 

In other words, roleplaying, not roll-playing.

[Korvar]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

The good thing about rolling Disads, as a GM, is it gives you combinations and permutations that you might not have thought of on your own. I do like that.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

IMO, Disads are there to tell me something about the character as much as anything. They're a GMing resourse, not a collection of handcuffs and straightjackets.

 

If every PC has an 11- DNPC, which is entirely possible in many campaignes, and I run by the strict definition you propose, then the only thing that goes on in the game will be a continuous stream of imperilled or otherwise "disadvantaging" DNPCs.

 

And the problem THERE is that everyone took DNPC at too high a level.

 

Or just bad GMing; it's quite easy to work a DNPC into another encounter (or several en masse; massive hostage situation anyone?)

 

I repeat, DNPC 11- says that the player is expecting them to show up every second session. If they don't realize that, tell them that and adjust it.

 

If they DO want that, maybe you should actually pay attention to their desires for the game, hmmm?

 

Or would that interfere with YOUR story? (I feel justified in continuing the name calling in an attempt to make you realize you're being childish)

 

If it were up to me, I'd entirely eliminate the rolls from Disads like DNPC, just to deprive this Gygaxian accountant-style gaming theory of the support that the rolls give it.

 

 

As for the blindness, I've had to handle that before, just not in HERO. Like any other Disad/Flaw/whatever, I didn't treat it as something I have to make the player pay for, I treat it as a fact that needs to be kept in mind and as an opportunity for good roleplaying and story. It's a problem because it's a problem, not because I go out of my way to make sure the "debt" is called in.

 

In other words, roleplaying, not roll-playing.

 

In other words, you hate having rules that make it possible for mere players to decide what's going to happen?

 

If you hate the game so much, why don't you quit and go write a novel?

 

Gee, that's fun, I can see why you did it.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

And the problem THERE is that everyone took DNPC at too high a level.

 

Or that the vehemently-supported view of Disads I see on these forums, that treats them as something that must be paid, paid, paid for, gets old fast if you're not interested in punishing your players and their characters.

 

Or just bad GMing; it's quite easy to work a DNPC into another encounter (or several en masse; massive hostage situation anyone?)

 

As you point out below, this is just silly name-calling on your part.

 

I repeat, DNPC 11- says that the player is expecting them to show up every second session. If they don't realize that, tell them that and adjust it.

 

Well, I guess that's what it says to you.

 

If they DO want that, maybe you should actually pay attention to their desires for the game, hmmm?

 

That's quite the leap. You seem determined either to see this in the worst way possible, or to start an argument, or both. Or maybe you're just reacting badly to someone questioning the long-assumed view of Disads. I really can't tell at this point.

 

Or would that interfere with YOUR story? (I feel justified in continuing the name calling in an attempt to make you realize you're being childish)

 

Yes, you can continue to engage in name-calling while I continue to try to address the topic of discussion. Have fun with that.

 

In other words, you hate having rules that make it possible for mere players to decide what's going to happen?

 

That's...a very interesting way to caricature what I said. Not at all accurate, or productive. But still, very interesting.

 

What I dislike is rules getting in the way of roleplaying, and a good story, and -- since it seems you assume otherwise -- everyone involved enjoying the game. That's important too.

 

If you hate the game so much, why don't you quit and go write a novel?

 

Gee, that's fun, I can see why you did it.

 

What on earth gives you the idea that I ever "quit the game"? What are you talking about?

 

BTW, I think I figured out the answer to the question in your signature.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Guys, let's take a step back for a second. I think that some people are coming off as more confrontational than they intend, because they felt that somehow they or what they stood for was being criticized.

 

This thread is just to compare different conceptions of Disads and ideas on how to use them.

 

Now, in the campaigns I have been in, I have never even SEEN a roll on a Disad, even hunted. We've just listed points value. The GM just incorporates the Disad whenever he feels like giving the player something fun for "their" character (which could easily spill over onto the other characters, muwahaha) or to help tie into the main plot.

[Kristopher]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Guys, let's take a step back for a second. I think that some people are coming off as more confrontational than they intend, because they felt that somehow they or what they stood for was being criticized.

 

This thread is just to compare different conceptions of Disads and ideas on how to use them.

 

Now, in the campaigns I have been in, I have never even SEEN a roll on a Disad, even hunted. We've just listed points value. The GM just incorporates the Disad whenever he feels like giving the player something fun for "their" character (which could easily spill over onto the other characters, muwahaha) or to help tie into the main plot.

 

And that's pretty much what I do, more or less.

 

That's what all three GMs I've played with in games using HERO have done, as well.

 

What boggles my mind is the constant undertone on these forums that such an approach doesn't "make the players pay for their points" or "isn't balanced'.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Or that the vehemently-supported view of Disads I see on these forums' date=' that treats them as something that must be paid, paid, paid for, gets old fast if you're not interested in punishing your players and their characters. [/quote']

 

Nonsense. It is not punishing the players. Players should take the disadvantages they _want_ to come up and deal with. At that point, it is rewarding them with attention and spotlight and showing that you give a damn about _that character_ in particular.

 

Best game of Champions I ever ran boiled down to 'exploiting' a disadvantage.

 

As you point out below, this is just silly name-calling on your part.

 

No, it's an accurate observation. Whether you're a bad GM is indeterminate, but it's certainly a possible explanation for the 'problem'.

 

Well, I guess that's what it says to you.

 

11- means 'roll every session, 55% chance of needing to incorporate it. That is the RULES. Likewise, 11- skill roll means 55% chance of success, STR 10 means a maximum lift of 100kg, and Vulnerability: x2 Stun from Cold Iron means Cold Iron does twice as much STUN to you...

 

That's what it actually does mean in the context of Hero. If you change it, you are house ruling, which does not make you correct, because in the context of the ACTUAL game, it means precisely what I said.

 

That's quite the leap. You seem determined either to see this in the worst way possible, or to start an argument, or both. Or maybe you're just reacting badly to someone questioning the long-assumed view of Disads. I really can't tell at this point.

 

No, it is not a leap.

 

If a player took DNPC 11- intending that disadvantage work AS WRITTEN IN THE RULEBOOK, then they are intending for the DNPC to show up every second session. Players do make mistakes in this regard, but they can also sometimes want things to work like they do in the rulebook, which is hardly an unreasonable assumption.

 

I take vulnerability, I should take double damage from X. I take susceptability, I should take damage from Y. I take energy blast, I can cause damage at range. Things should work as written unless clearly specified not to, or in case of GM fiat (which should not be taken as grounds to stomp on a character concept; if you have an issue with a concept stomp on it out of game).

 

And if a player wants passionately for their DNPC to show up every second session, and it is a vital part of their character concept that they need to rescue them all the time... you should ABSOLUTELY try and work that into the game.

 

Yes, you can continue to engage in name-calling while I continue to try to address the topic of discussion. Have fun with that.

 

The guy who started off with "Gygaxian" and other terms of endearment has NO moral high ground.

 

That's...a very interesting way to caricature what I said. Not at all accurate, or productive. But still, very interesting.

 

What I dislike is rules getting in the way of roleplaying, and a good story, and -- since it seems you assume otherwise -- everyone involved enjoying the game. That's important too.

 

Rules can't get in the way of roleplaying and a good story and people enjoying themselves. Only the actions of a human being can interfere with that. If they're stopping someone from having fun, it's because someone is making them unfun.

 

To misquote gun rights activists: Rules don't kill fun. People kill fun.

 

Incidently: When you call my claim that you should apply the rules as written as being 'bad for roleplaying', 'unfun', or use the term Gygaxian, you caricature MY position.

 

I decided to reply in kind and see how you'd deal. The answer? You ranted and raved and generally completely missed the fact that you did the exact same thing.

 

I'll be generous: I apologize for being insulting, constructing a straw man out of pieces of your position, and being condescending.

 

NOW can we have a civilized debate where you consider the possibility that you could be wrong?

 

What on earth gives you the idea that I ever "quit the game"? What are you talking about?

 

BTW, I think I figured out the answer to the question in your signature.

 

 

I'm saying, if you don't like actually using the rules, maybe you should stop. I'm not saying you have, I'm saying you might be happier playing a game with no nasty rules that might actually provide structure and make it easier to have fun!

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Guys, let's take a step back for a second. I think that some people are coming off as more confrontational than they intend, because they felt that somehow they or what they stood for was being criticized.

 

This thread is just to compare different conceptions of Disads and ideas on how to use them.

 

Now, in the campaigns I have been in, I have never even SEEN a roll on a Disad, even hunted. We've just listed points value. The GM just incorporates the Disad whenever he feels like giving the player something fun for "their" character (which could easily spill over onto the other characters, muwahaha) or to help tie into the main plot.

 

 

My play style was compared to D&D. Not even 3.5, but the bad old days of killer DMing.

 

That IS a criticism. That is an insult.

 

A Killer DM does NOT care about the rules. Bad DM's will cheat happily to get their desired result.

 

A GOOD GM? Might value being fair and impartial. This is where actually caring about following the rules comes in, rather than using them as justification to do whatever the hell you feel.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

And that's pretty much what I do, more or less.

 

That's what all three GMs I've played with in games using HERO have done, as well.

 

What boggles my mind is the constant undertone on these forums that such an approach doesn't "make the players pay for their points" or "isn't balanced'.

 

Did I say a thing about balanced or "pay for their points"?

 

No... I said you should actually follow the rules. Or if you're going to ignore them, admit that. After all, sitting around in a group telling stories completely systemless is a fine pastime. It just isn't (say) Hero.

 

You claim that rolling for Hunteds is BAD PLAY?

 

I'm tempted to spend a few paragraphs swearing at you for that.

 

Disadvantages give the player the right to demand that the GM actually interact with their ideas for their character. They let them introduce their own NPC's, determine what kinds of situations ought to occur, and more.

 

"I am hunted by the freakin' HAND. I should be killing Ninjae every second session. I WANT to kill Ninjae every second session. If you don't want to have me do that, you should have disallowed the disadvantage. I would have come up with something else cool. But noooooo, you would rather ignore my ideas!"

[KA.]

Re: Using Supervillain Psych Lims

 

Kristopher,

I realize that this discussion has become a bit heated, so please don't take this as an attack, but I do have some questions about your position.

 

If you think that using Disadvantages at the listed frequency interferes with a good storyline, why not just allow for more base points and let your players take the Disadvantages at lower levels?

 

I understand the concept that you use them more for 'flavor' in your campaign, and you have every right in the world to do that, but it does make for Players who may well rankle if they end up gaming with a GM who does enforce the rules in a more orthodox way.

 

It isn't a 'moral' issue of 'right and wrong', it is just an issue of letting your players know what is 'standard' and what is 'the way you do things in your campaign'.

 

Let me bring in an example from another arena.

 

I am currently taking classes at a community college.

 

Since most of my classes are in one particular field (automotive) and the program is rather small, most of my classes are taught by the same professor.

He is also the person who runs the program, so he has a great deal of latitude in what he does, at least as far as the automotive classes.

Because what we are learning is a trade skill, it is far more important for us to actually know how to fix things, than to memorize every possible name for the same part, etc.

And, since we tend to do a lot of work in the shop, repairing problems related to the area we are studying (Brakes, Air Conditioning, etc.) it is not really vital to show up for every single class, because the odds are that if you don't get to work on something today, you will get to next week.

However, he still holds us to the exact same attendance rules, grading policies, etc, as the rest of the college.

Why?

Because if he let us miss 10 classes in a semester (3 is the standard), then it is quite likely that at least some students would feel they were being treated unfairly when their English or History or Math teacher flunked them for doing the same thing.

 

In the past he actually tried spelling out to the students that there were different attendance policies in the Automotive classes vs. the General Education classes, but there were always misunderstandings.

 

Now this is a more formal situation than gaming with a group of friends, but the same concept holds true.

 

If there were no easy way to deal with this, I could see the need for hand-waving, but there is.

 

If you have your players take Disadvantages at lower levels, the levels that you want and intend to enforce, and give them more base points, at least they will have a realistic idea of how Disadvantages are enforced in a standard campaign.

 

Otherwise, you are setting them up to see a GM who is playing according to the rules as 'grossly unfair'.

 

It isn't a question of right or wrong, or even your rights as a GM.

 

You have every right to modify your campaign as you see fit.

 

But if you are telling your players that your way is the standard way, when it isn't, then you are misinforming them.

 

I am not supporting the idea that every session is controlled solely by the random action of the Disadvantage dice, but I do support the idea that Disadvantages should be enforced at the level they are purchased.

 

Which means that if Spider-Man is on the Space Shuttle for a couple of weeks, one of the following things should happen:

a) Mary Jane and Aunt May stowed away on the shuttle.

(A bit forced, I agree, but that sort of thing happens in comics all the time.)

 

The shuttle is going to crash near New York, and Spider-Man realizes it is going to land pretty darn near to the Spa that MJ and Aunt May are visiting, which means that they will be consumed in a fiery holocaust if he doesn't save the day.

 

c) The Supervillain who hijacked the Shuttle has gathered a group of hostages in his secret base, and that is where the shuttle is going to crash land because the retro rockets are malfunctioning. With the bad luck that only DNPC's can have, MJ and Aunt May are among the hostages.

 

d) An old enemy has chosen the time of Spider-Man's absence to strike, and MJ and Aunt May are reported missing, while he is far above the Earth and helpless to rescue them.

 

e) Spider-Man is going to return to Earth to find a heap of DNPC trouble waiting for him.

 

And, if you don't want things like that to happen in your campaign, then tell Spider-Man's player to take them at an "8 or less", or perhaps collectively as a group at "8 or less" so they don't show up very often and it is easy to work them in.

 

I think there is a compromise path between saying:

"Even though you are in an undersea kingdom created by the Elder Gods, and the only way to get here was by using the Conch Shell of Cthulhu, which was destroyed in the process, Joey, your wheelchair-bound newsboy DNPC shows up."

and saying:

"Take all the Disadvantages you want.

Those are just free points and background for your character.

The exact same plots are going to run whether you take them or not."

 

And this applies to GM characters as well as Player characters.

If I want to just give them points, I call it a “Villain Bonus”.

I don’t load them up with bogus Disadvantages that I never intend to enforce.

 

As to the original thread topic:

One classic example of a costly Villain Disadvantage can be seen in “The Running Man”.

All through the film, Killian, the Evil Game Show host, acts like a total jerk.

He especially seems to enjoy insulting and humiliating his employees, including his personal bodyguard.

At the end of the film, the bodyguard takes a look at the bloody, buff, and very annoyed, Arnold Schwarzenegger and decides that taking a pounding for his boss is not really worth it.

 

That is one of the side-effects of ‘evil’ Disadvantages. The hired help may slavishly follow you as long as you are in a position of power, because they fear you. But if it ever looks like you might lose, or aren’t in a position to kill them right now, they will either abandon you, or turn on you like snakes, because they don’t like you at all.

 

KA.