Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

[kjamma4]

CorPse made a post in this thread:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42014

 

wishing for the book, The Ultimate Disad[vantage]. In that thread, he asked the question, "How many campaigns don't use Disads?"

 

Well, since I've only been in one campaign of HERO (and only since late last year), my experience with that is a bit limited. However, I have roleplayed for quite some time and I have never experienced a campaign that DIDN'T use disadvantages (assuming, of course, that the game itself had a mechanism for disadvantages.)

 

I, as the GM of a game, feel bound to work something into the game to take into account the disadvantage of the characters. One, because it makes for interesting roleplaying and two, because if the character is getting the benefit of extra points "payed" for by the disadvantage, he/she is going to suffer some drawbacks as well. As a player, I feel the same way. Generally speaking, the disadvantages allow me to "get into" the character and roleplay, rather than just roll-play.

 

In the game of TORG, you receive cards which generally allowed you some benefit to your skills/abilities. However, there were also cards that set you up for possible disadvantages, such as a love interest or a nemesis. You would receive possibilities (which were basically rerolls to spend in the game). It was at the GM's discretion as to whether he/she could work something into the game in regards to the cards but I always did, for the reasons enumerated above.

 

I really think that a GM is doing a disservice, both to himself and to his players, by not fully incorporating disadvantages into the campaign.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

I think almost any good character has some disadvantages. Some campaigns might not use "big D" Disadvantages and the points they bring, but they're still there, especially psych lims. Some might be hard to put into words on a character sheet, and you might not realize them at the moment the character's created, but they're there and are part of what makes that character who they are.

[Vondy]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

I use them, but in the little "d" sense. I want to see a good write up with the disads built into it. In other words: I don't want a game mechanic laundry list. I want a character. A good character will have disadvantages built into his write up that can be distilled into a list of disadvantages on the sheet. This means my games are sometimes heavy on psychological lims, but other disads exist as well. Insofar as the character is well formed I don't sweat it. In fact, I'd rather have a character who makes sense and fits with the world than a character with all kinds of things from left field that are hard to work with and indicate the player was just taking them to round out his point totals. On the other hand, I have no real point caps in my games, but characters usually have a general 100+100 guideline. If a character costs more it costs more. And its not unheard of for my players to go over on disadvantages without taking the points because its how the character write up turned out.

[OddHat]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

Not much to add to what has been said, but:

 

I see disads as a role playing guide for the player, and as suggestions from the player to the GM on what kinds of events the player would like to see. If the player includes a hunted, he is telling the GM that he wants that enemy to show up in an adventure. If he includes a psych limit, he is indicating that he wants to explore that aspect of the character. I view limitations in a similar light; if you give your power a focus, you are telling the GM that you occasionally want to explore situations where that power is unavailable.

 

This is just my POV; YMMV.

 

In my own games, I've gone down to 100 points of Disads rather than 150 or more. It helps me keep track of the disads each character has, and cuts down on excess disads that may rarely or never come up in play.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

I find that disadvantages, particularly Psych Lims, are very useful for defining a character, even if they aren't ever applied as game mechanics. I don't feel that it's necessary for them to be meticulously accounted for; to make sure that the player gets his point's worth of trouble out of them. After all, if you had just added the max disadvantage value to the base points, and then let the players write down a short list of whatever their character's major personality traits and problems were, how would that be different? It wouldn't, except that no one would argue that the characters should suffer for their "free points".

 

For that reason, I don't like the suggested disadvantage totals for high-level supers. I'm not even really happy with the total for normal supers--150 points is a LOT of disadvantages, and it always seems like a real stretch to get that many. I realize that it's a maximum, not a requirement, but it still tends to make all the characters look the same. Everyone has several different Hunteds, a Code vs. Killing, a DNPC, a Vulnerability or Susceptability, and a Psych Lim or two. I have no idea how the really powerful heroes are supposed to come up with 200 or 250 points of disads--that's a pretty messed-up person.

 

To me, characters feel comfortable with 50-100 points of disads, with some supers running up to 150. More than that starts to seem artificial.

[tesuji]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

Well, since I've only been in one campaign of HERO (and only since late last year), my experience with that is a bit limited. However, I have roleplayed for quite some time and I have never experienced a campaign that DIDN'T use disadvantages (assuming, of course, that the game itself had a mechanism for disadvantages.)

 

snip...

 

I really think that a GM is doing a disservice, both to himself and to his players, by not fully incorporating disadvantages into the campaign.

 

I tend to disagree here.

 

i have had the pleasure of running players thru a variety of campaigns, the same people, and so i have seen them in systems where disadvantages are there and very up front gotta have them to compete (HERo for instance) and in games where disadvantages were just add-on elements to help with character fleshing and only did a little for potency (Vampire, Serenity most recently and MnM come to mind), and in games where there were no mechanical benefits for them at all and it was all for fun, something you did and handled because you liked it. (many, DnD for instance, traveller iirc as another.)

 

Here's my take seeing them in all those various circumstances.

 

I got the best characters, with hooks and background and real "feels like person" vibes and stories when disads were the NO VALUE JUST FOR FUn variety. Each player had to give me background and answer a "character quiz 20 questions thing" and every bit they added in, every "disad" was there because the player wanted it, not because they had to to balance points. When these were dealt with in game, they were dealt with and gone without any flurry of accounting. A lot of names appeared as people, some serious some just cool, etc.

 

The worst characters, in terms of being the least robust and playable and the ones there seemed to be the most friction when running and so forth were from the ones with the most extensive accounting, HERO, where it seemed the "whats good to take for not getting me in trouble" monkey hit and so everyone had similar write-ups... 50 in psyche, 50 in social, an ID issue, a distinctive features issue and then if they absolutely had to 5-10 or so in vuln/susc. Not a name ever appeared if it wasn't reflected as points.

 

The in between games tended to be Ok but not all that robust. The "listing out" of disads seemed to limit their choices rather than inspire them.

 

For me, i am not ever going to use heavy doses of pre-paid disads in my games, period. it just doesn't produce the results.

 

I now use only the "no value" disads entirely or the "small value" disads but work them to also have a PAYOFF in game, so that whenever it comes up and shows itself as a problem your character gained bonus for it, like bonus xp or plot points. rewarding the in game event puts the Gmand player both on the "lets see this thing happen" bandwagon side by side whereas the loan shark method "i give you points now but i will cause you pain later to make up for it" seems to put them in different camps.

[kjamma4]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

The worst characters, in terms of being the least robust and playable and the ones there seemed to be the most friction when running and so forth were from the ones with the most extensive accounting, HERO, where it seemed the "whats good to take for not getting me in trouble" monkey hit and so everyone had similar write-ups... 50 in psyche, 50 in social, an ID issue, a distinctive features issue and then if they absolutely had to 5-10 or so in vuln/susc. Not a name ever appeared if it wasn't reflected as points.

 

"i give you points now but i will cause you pain later to make up for it" seems to put them in different camps.

 

I don't think I would let someone get away with the "what's good to take for not getting me in trouble" ploy. [i think we are both saying that is not a real disadvantage, that is manipulation of the system.] I don't know if that is specific only to HERO, but I can see where HERO's point system could cause some players to do so.

 

I don't see the disadvantages as a way of causing pain just for the sake of causing pain, I see it as a way of making the character more realistic (which can be done if the character experiences pain). If you operate under the assumption that the points given for disadvantages are balanced when compared against the advantages you get for the points, then there really should be no problem. It should be a trade off and the character that takes 25 points in disadvantages (and spends the points on advantages) should be as balanced as the character that takes 75 points in disadvantages and gets the corresponding points in advantages.

 

If you allow a character 25 points in disadvantages because his power won't work on the fifth Tuesday of the month in a leap year from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, you better make sure that this occurs in your game. One, because the character benefitted from the points and two, because the player should expect "pain" from getting the benefit. That is one of the purposes of the disadvantage.

 

If they only got benefits from the points, they wouldn't be called disadvantages.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

The only problem I have with Disadvantages is those times when I find that I need to enforce them heavy-handedly (heavily-handed?), because a player either forgot what he asked for, or took something he really didn't like 'because', or that he didn't fully understand, typically in the Psych Lim department. Back in college, I had a rash of people taking Code vs Killing and then plying "I'm not going to KILL him, just hack off both arms" or "Bob's got healing powers, so we can torture him indefinitely and not worry about killing him". This also happens when someone takes a Psych Lim that they absolutely, positively, cannot play (there's a reason I've never taken 'Grim and Humorless', but frequently take some variant of Smartass/Cannot Resist Taunting Foes in Combat/Uses Sarcasm as a Defense Mechanism).

 

In my experience, a character with a well-thought out background with even moderate detail will be able to hit 120-130 points of Disads easy, though those last 20-30 points are like pulling teeth sometimes, and you might have to take something that wasn't in the original design ... or, alternately, simply build the character on 320-330 points and only take the required Disads for that, something I don't think I've ever seen anybody do.

[tesuji]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

 

I don't think I would let someone get away with the "what's good to take for not getting me in trouble" ploy. [i think we are both saying that is not a real disadvantage, that is manipulation of the system.] I don't know if that is specific only to HERO, but I can see where HERO's point system could cause some players to do so.

Oh, absolutely its not specific to HERO but IMX pervasive to any disad system. The example cited comes from a Serenity game. But the more weight given the disad points and the need for them, IMX, the more this occurs.

 

Obviously, it doesn't occur at all in games where disads are just for fun.

 

I don't see the disadvantages as a way of causing pain just for the sake of causing pain, I see it as a way of making the character more realistic (which can be done if the character experiences pain).

This i get from games where the disads are a minor part of the equation or not in the math at all. IMX you don't get MORE REALISTIC characters when its such a part of the point buy scheme that all your guys have the same pts and all are squeezed for the minmax best choices.

 

Matter of fact, the most realistic ones i encountered were when it was all in the "just for fun" because they occured when they occured naturally and organically and when they resolved they could just be let go with no monkeying for replacement points or for buy offs.

 

If you operate under the assumption that the points given for disadvantages are balanced when compared against the advantages you get for the points, then there really should be no problem. It should be a trade off and the character that takes 25 points in disadvantages (and spends the points on advantages) should be as balanced as the character that takes 75 points in disadvantages and gets the corresponding points in advantages.

I have known several very serious HERO playin' guys who adamantly argued that disads were not supposed to be balanced but supposed to be "less hurtful" than the points they provided were worth. Their argument was that it was an understood "good trade off" and not an "even trade" because every hero character maxes disads, published and non, rather than say bringing in a 300 pt total character in a 200+disads up to 150 game.

 

if it were even, the 300 would be fine as 200+100 for the 350 game, but its never represented that way.

 

If you allow a character 25 points in disadvantages because his power won't work on the fifth Tuesday of the month in a leap year from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, you better make sure that this occurs in your game. One, because the character benefitted from the points and two, because the player should expect "pain" from getting the benefit. That is one of the purposes of the disadvantage.

agreed

If they only got benefits from the points, they wouldn't be called disadvantages.

agreed. buit that doesn't mean players don't try to find the best dodge.

[Lucius]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

Well, first off -

 

I have almost never seen a disadvantage taken in a game where it was "just for fun." In my experience, players in games with no formal rules for disadvantages don't usually create them for their characters.

 

Conversely, where disadvantages are allowed in the rules, they are almost always taken. I think I've seen one Hero character that did not take a disadvantage.

 

I have noticed that players can be "superstitious" about certain disadvantages. For example, in Changeling, there seems to be a perception that taking "echoes" will basically cripple a character, although the write up did not seem to suggest that to me. In Hero, it seems to be Unluck - a player would literally rather give up a character's right arm to avoid taking Unluck, but when I've seen it in play, I have never seen it create enough havoc to justify that level of dread.

 

What was the question again?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that Lucius Alexander seldom takes "Code Against Killing"

[prestidigitator]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

I have noticed that players can be "superstitious" about certain disadvantages. For example' date=' in Changeling, there seems to be a perception that taking "echoes" will basically cripple a character, although the write up did not seem to suggest that to me. In Hero, it seems to be Unluck - a player would literally rather give up a character's right arm to avoid taking Unluck, but when I've seen it in play, I have never seen it create enough havoc to justify that level of dread.[/quote']

Heh. No kidding. Conversely, how come all my WoD players want the Dark Fate Flaw? It is absolutely horrid, and no Storyteller in their right mind should feel the slightest pang about screwing over the character, but every player seems to take it. What the heck?

[kjamma4]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

[tesuji said: I have known several very serious HERO playin' guys who adamantly argued that disads were not supposed to be balanced but supposed to be "less hurtful" than the points they provided were worth. Their argument was that it was an understood "good trade off" and not an "even trade" because every hero character maxes disads, published and non, rather than say bringing in a 300 pt total character in a 200+disads up to 150 game.]

 

 

Odd that it is the PLAYERS arguing that rather than the GMs.

 

 

[tesuji said: but that doesn't mean players don't try to find the best dodge.]

 

Agreed. I guess it is incumbent upon the GM (and the other players for that matter) to straighten those players out.

 

**As an aside, I had a player in the TORG game I was running play a cyber-demon. He wanted to get some information from a bum so he tortured the bum, killed him, and then ate him. At the end of the session, I refused to award him possibilities which are basically rewards that let you reroll/add to dice roll. He complained that what he did was in character for a cyber-demon. My counter was that he was playing a HEROIC cyber-demon and what he did was in no way was heroic. Also, there were mechanics in game for denizens of the cyber cosm to alternately overpower weaker folk. I considered all player characters to have this "disadvantage" and expected them to adhere to it. FWIW, I did give the guy a few chances to consider his actions aforehand.**

[zornwil]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

Well, first off -

 

I have almost never seen a disadvantage taken in a game where it was "just for fun." In my experience, players in games with no formal rules for disadvantages don't usually create them for their characters.

 

I would say I generally disagree in terms of actual roleplay, though I imagine you mean something much more technical or specific, which I'm not sure is fair, anyway, as in any system if there's no mechanical reason to specifically write down "Hard psych lim re..." then people don't document - just because peopel don't document anything they don't have to anyway. I've sat in on sessions of games that didn't have that and have GMed games such as Dogs in the Vineyard which don't have them (you could say a 1d4 Trait is a disadvantage but that doesn't really equate), and what I generally see is that players saddle their characters quite proactively with attitudes or ways of thinking that constrain or even dictate their course of actions. That's what a disad is.

 

Conversely, where disadvantages are allowed in the rules, they are almost always taken. I think I've seen one Hero character that did not take a disadvantage.

 

I have noticed that players can be "superstitious" about certain disadvantages. For example, in Changeling, there seems to be a perception that taking "echoes" will basically cripple a character, although the write up did not seem to suggest that to me. In Hero, it seems to be Unluck - a player would literally rather give up a character's right arm to avoid taking Unluck, but when I've seen it in play, I have never seen it create enough havoc to justify that level of dread.

 

Yeah, that's an interesting point. I don't know if I agree that Unluck is the one people avoid the most, but anyway the basic idea seems true enough re the way some players react to certain disads. I think to some degree it also is influenced by their core concept of what a hero is, and I think people find that being a hero entails certain fundamental principles (on an individual basis, not saying that all people subscribe to the same ones), so when a person builds a character, they tend to embed one single sort of element into all their characters. I was thinking of this a little while ago, and there was a thread on this as well. Anyway, the point is that certain viewpoints of what fundamentally makes a hero might influence the view on some particular disads.

[sinanju]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

I don't think I would let someone get away with the "what's good to take for not getting me in trouble" ploy. [i think we are both saying that is not a real disadvantage' date= that is manipulation of the system.] I don't know if that is specific only to HERO, but I can see where HERO's point system could cause some players to do so.

 

I'll confess to being one of those players. I'd much rather be given, say, 350 points up front and then told to take whatever disads suit my conception of the character--for no extra points. I prefer taking lots of psychologicials to define my character's personality, values and whatnot. Games with 150 pts of disads and a cap of 50 points on all categories are a pain in the ass. I take my psychs, a couple of socials...and then I have to really hunt for things that will fit my character AND which I'm willing to deal with as disads when I don't really want them in the first place.

 

When/if I run a Hero System game again, I'm going to go the "give them all points up front, with disads for no extra points" route.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

They all take Dark Fate because its free points, they assume no DM is going to enforce it (because it railroads the plot TOWARDS them, and few people will bother) and lastly, it fulfills their desire to be all angsty and someone hate themselves and be the center of attention simultaneously.

 

I used to allow it, but I don't think I would today, were I to run WW again (which is highly unlikely to begin with).

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

They all take Dark Fate because its free points, they assume no DM is going to enforce it (because it railroads the plot TOWARDS them, and few people will bother) and lastly, it fulfills their desire to be all angsty and someone hate themselves and be the center of attention simultaneously.

 

I used to allow it, but I don't think I would today, were I to run WW again (which is highly unlikely to begin with).

 

I admit, taking Dark Fate is kind of like taking 'Tasty to Shuggoths' in Call of C'thulhu. Just by being *in* the game, you're pretty well assumed to suffer a dark fate (or be eaten by a monster).

 

Amusingly, the one person I saw take Dark Fate managed to consistently weasel out of it by a combination of dumb luck and quick thinking.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

Tasty to Shuggoths? This is actually in the game?! :stare: Now that's comedy. Yes, I've tried to do Dark Fate, but believe it - it's far more of a PIA to design it, rail road & execute it and have it make sense. And as you say, just by being in the game, clearly things aren't going to go your way.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

Tasty to Shuggoths? This is actually in the game?! :stare:

 

Well, no, not to my knowledge. I was being a smartaft.

[DrFurious]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

Nowadays, I'd probably change disadvantages to work more like the BITs concept in the Burning Wheel RPG - the players invoke them in order to 'advance' in some manager. Either as xp or more appropriately some drama dice mechanic.

 

I've found that players too often take disadvantages they really aren't eager to play just because they're trying to reach the max. disadvantage points allowed. The attitude is often 'I can put up with this disad' or 'it won't be that bad'. This doesn't apply to all disads but invariable those kinds slip into their design. All IME.

[Thrakazog]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

I usually find myself filling out the disads part of the sheet before anything else. A campaign without disads? Heresy!

[radioKAOS]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

In my campaign the players made skilled normals [75+75] in the world before the apoc happened... of course this means that most of their disads no longer affect them [it also means things like most perks are no longer useful]. I'm fine with it really, as the characters were rounded out nicely as people before the proverbial poop hit the spinning air motion enhancer.

 

I also know that there are a ton of disads they have to deal with in this new setting for the characters, so it balances out nicely in the end.

 

Ideally, so long as the characters are fully fleshed out, I don't really care a lot about disad points.

[BeZurKur]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

I see disads as a role playing guide for the player' date=' and as suggestions from the player to the GM on what kinds of events the player would like to see. If the player includes a hunted, he is telling the GM that he wants that enemy to show up in an adventure. If he includes a psych limit, he is indicating that he wants to explore that aspect of the character. I view limitations in a similar light; if you give your power a focus, you are telling the GM that you occasionally want to explore situations where that power is unavailable.[/quote']

 

I agree. Hero is one of the few games that allows the player to actively control the campaign world and scenarios through disadvantages. Unfortunately, I've seen games where the disadvantages aren't used because it will interfere with the GM's story. I believe that goes against the design of the game. It is the GM's responsibility to make sure that everyone can tell their story within the framework of the campaign. A group of four heroes with different Hunteds 14- cannot work.

 

The best part of Hero is the Disadvantages. I don't understand why someone would run a campaign without them. It is too great an oppurtunity to pass up, IMHO, but is is better than having them and not using them. That said, I also agree that coming up with more than 150 points (possibly even 100 points) is difficult -- especially if he is working with a group.

[Kenn]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

I can barely imagine running a HERO game without using disadvantages, but I also think there is a propensity to make them overly important.

 

Over the years I became really sick and tired of the "I need X more points to make my character balance," routine. And like many of you have found that taking more than 120-130 that actually make sense to the average super hero's background is all but impossible.

 

I also decided years ago not to be ruled by the die rolls listed by the disads. If it makes sense for the hero's wife/girlfriend/brother to be there s/he will be. If not, s/he won't. And I tell my players to not take a DNPC at more than 8- because I'm not gonna have them there that often. Same deal with Hunteds. I'll use them as story hooks, and bring them in when they belong. But there are many characters in the campaign, and I don't want one character's hooks to dominate the whole story.

 

At this point, I tell my players, "Take the Disadvantages that are appropriate to the character; it'll probably be around 120, maybe 130 points." If they still need points, to balance their abilities, I'll kick them up a level on Base Points.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

Tasty to Shuggoths? This is actually in the game?! :stare: Now that's comedy. Yes' date=' I've tried to do Dark Fate, but believe it - it's far more of a PIA to design it, rail road & execute it and have it make sense. And as you say, just by being in the game, clearly things aren't going to go your way.[/quote']

 

I've toyed with the idea of submitting two characters to a GM, with the first having a Dark Fate, or terminal illness, or some such, and say "ok, you can knock yourself out with this one, we've got a spare in the bag." Especially if you can keep the secret from the other players, it could be a ball.

[schir1964]

Re: Campaigns that don't use Disadvantages???

 

When I create a character I use two methods for balance.

 

1) If I find that I don't have enough Disadvantages to push the points up, I don't take non-sensical Disadvantages, I simply scale back all my powers till it's under the points I have available. Who says the character must max out the possible points available at creation time. He may not be as powerful as the other characters starting out, so what? (8^D)

 

2) Mystery Disadvantage. If the GM permits them, I prefer to fill out any additional points needed with these. Basically it gives the GM a way to assign campaign specific Disadvantages as the campaign progresses. I can see how some types of players (control freaks(8^D)) might not like this option. But I'm usually a glutton for punishment as far as my character's are concerned.

 

- Christopher Mullins