disad costs

[bigdamnhero]

Re: disad costs

 

I can see a caimpaign guideline which pushes disads' date=' for many reasons. However making disads an assumption, a part of the system as opposed to a bonus removed the wonderous flexability of the Hero system. If there is a caimpaign where disads are up to the character and the concept and not an assumption of the background, those concepts which play "by the rules" will benifit over those who go a different path. Then we are back to the old days of D&D where low level elves were better then humans till the level limits take over, therefore just about everyone takes some flavor of elf. Except with disad selection instead of race selection[/quote']

I think you're overstating your case more than a little. For one thing, saying "every character should have some Disads to make them more three-dimensional" is a far cry from dictating which Disads you can or can't take. More importantly, the guidelines for how many Disads to take are just that: guidelines. If you don't like them, you are free -- nay, encouraged! -- to set whatever guidelines you feel are appropriate to your campaign. This isn't WOTC (or worse GW) where you will be shunned and scowled at it you deviate from the letter of the rules.

 

Moreover, if you want to have no set guidelines for Disads at all and let characters pick as few or as many as fits their character, you're free to do that too. Call it "demand side" Disads as opposed to the "supply side" approach of the current rules. But while that may sound good from an organic character creation standpoint, I'm not sure it's an improvement from a gaming standpoint. You may find that such an approach leads to far more munchkinism, rather than less. But hey, it's your game.

[Warp9]

Re: disad costs

 

Forgive me if this has come up before.

 

 

I find it a bit bothersome [but easy to fix] that disads cost the same regardless of the starting points of a character.

 

A 25 point bonus means a lot more to a 100 point hero then a 350+ hero.

 

I seem to recall, perhaps wrongly, that inthe old days of stand alone games that the disad costs would vary, being lower in games like FH where character points were expected to be in the 100 to 150 range, then in Champs where the 250+ was the standard.

 

I find at least for the non super type things, there is too much value for disads and as such presure to come up with character concepts that can justify disads.

 

Discuss

I personally have not had a problem with the way the rules play out.

 

However, I think that you may be correct, especially as you get to higher and higher point characters.

 

If you were to run a 3500 point game (and I'm not saying that you would do so, but it is possible) then disads would work differently.

 

I'm not sure you'd want to go with 2000 Base + 1500 disads.

 

What would a character with 1500 disads look like?

 

Now I could probably come of with a bunch of disads which are not really harmful, but that is because I'm a rules rapist. And the GM should not let me get away with something like that. But 1500 points of real disads would be a big problem.

 

So instead you might go with something more like 3200 Base + 300 disads (total 3500), but here we can see a clear difference in the role of disadvantages.

 

In a 200+150 game, disads play a BIG role in altering the power level of the characters. In a 75+75 game, they play an even bigger role in altering the power level of the characters.

 

In a 3200+300 game, it would be more like: "who cares?"

[CourtFool]

Re: disad costs

 

Personally, I think a character without Disadvantages is rather boring. I always thought Disadvantages added dimension to a character; especially Hunted and Psychological Limitations.

 

I think because RPGs are games, (I am going to loose my Narativist card) balance is important. And balance skews concept.

If everyone in your group agreed, they could build their characters with as many or as few points and Disadvantages as concept dictated. I have not run across a group yet willing to accept the wide disparity that would occur.

[Silbeg]

Re: disad costs

 

Basiclly, I can't speak for super hero caimpaigns too much, however, if I had a 350+125 instead of a 350+150 I don't think it would be too bad, as you are only down 5% vs being down almost 10% from a 150+50 vs 150+75.

 

Um, I think there is some confusion here.

For the typical supers campaign, the base is 200, plus up to an additional 150 points of disads.

 

Now, a typical heroic game may be 50+50, 75+75, or something like that.

 

Also, typically, the recommended caps per type of disadvantage are lower based on the game template.

 

Typically in a superheroic game, you can have 50 points per disad category, while in a heroic (such as talented normal level) you would get at most 25 per category.

 

This gets expanded as the power levels go up.

 

As your characters get more powerful, so do their weaknesses. While a Navy Seal in a heroic cinematic adventure game might be Overconfident, his psyche is probably more balanced than the mutant who is Overconfident, a Thrillseeker, and also a Publicity Seeker.

 

He may have a social limitation of Subject to Orders, he probably also doesn't have a Secret ID (he probably doesn't have a Public ID either).

 

So, on a point of balance, I don't think there is anything wrong with the current system of disadvantages. I have run both Superheroic and Heroic games, and have found that the Heroic characters tend to pick interesting disads, much like the superheroic. In fact, they have tended to be more diverse, since you don't see the "Ok, I need 50 points of psych lims, 50 points of Hunteds, and we'll fill out the rest with other stuff..."