Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

[Robyn]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

They may not run away.

 

They may get Knockback, though, which amounts to the same thing when applied in large doses

 

Taking a Disad (properly worded or otherwise) should not allow one to bypass Game Mechanics' date=' especially ones such as Damaged, Stunned or Knocked Out.[/quote']

 

There may be an overlap between this and the principle of not letting one power do something that another power was designed to do. I think a good way of measuring the limits of SFX' influence could be "anything that a mechanic would be better at handling, deny"; if the group prefers a level of complexity somewhere below "calculating wind shear for individual bullets", the GM can "handwave" everything on the "too complex" side of that line.

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

OK, so if this happens just one time over the course of a three year campaign, then one of these should have occurred for the attack to not work:

1. Morphine Man (who can't feel pain) buys Mental Defense with "Only against attacks that just deal pain (-2)"

2. King Dentist (who causes pain) puts a limitation on his Ego Attack of "Not against people who don't feel pain (-1/4)"

 

To me, this is a bit ludicrous. Either Morphine Man is paying for something that only gets used once, or King Dentist is getting a cost break for something that only limits him once.

 

Now, I would have to agree that if this situation occurs over several sessions, then points need to get paid or deducted somewhere. After using the spell several times, maybe those pain nerve endings get awakened for a short time or some such thing.

 

And again, I'm not saying that Morphine Man takes no STUN. At some point his brain is gonna say "OMG, this is too much I gotta shut down" and MM will be passed out on the floor. If a single hit causes Stunning his brain will say "OMG, this is too much, I feel dizzy". I'm definitely not removing Stunning and Knockout just because he's got a disad to feel no pain. I think we are all in agreement on that point.

 

By the way, I'm the GM. I'm just asking what you guys would do. I'd rather be prepared in case it ever comes up, but I really don't think it ever will.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Because' date=' of course, how the power was [i']built[/i] is the sole and ultimate arbiter of how the power is defined. According to the Universality of Mechanic rule, anyway, which I am a loyal adherent of. This principle has never caused me any problems. I have not encountered any situations in which I built the power one way during chargen but realized later on that I should have done it differently. I have never made any mistake. I am perfect. That is because I . . . am a machine.

 

I lack imagination; if a situation comes up where the mechanics dictate one outcome and Common Sense would indicate another, I see no conflict, because I am not programmed for "common sense". My coders may apply an update to me after the game session, to improve my future performance, but this will be irrelevant since their inherent imperfections will not change the fact that I did do the right thing when the question arose.

 

__________________

Sarcasm so think you could cut it with a knife,

Sublety like a hammer right between the eyes.

 

You're right, randomness, bad character design, a lack of understanding of how the rules work, inconsistency, arbitraryness, and resolution by whim is a much better way to do it.

 

Its a wonder that anyone would chose to use a flexible but structured game like the HERO System that is founded on the concept of coming up with a concept and then expressing how it works mechanically and then actually use the system to do so. What are they thinking?

 

Your sarcasm and "sublety" are neither as witty nor as clever as you seem to think.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

OK, so if this happens just one time over the course of a three year campaign, then one of these should have occurred for the attack to not work:

1. Morphine Man (who can't feel pain) buys Mental Defense with "Only against attacks that just deal pain (-2)"

2. King Dentist (who causes pain) puts a limitation on his Ego Attack of "Not against people who don't feel pain (-1/4)"

 

To me, this is a bit ludicrous. Either Morphine Man is paying for something that only gets used once, or King Dentist is getting a cost break for something that only limits him once.

 

Now, I would have to agree that if this situation occurs over several sessions, then points need to get paid or deducted somewhere. After using the spell several times, maybe those pain nerve endings get awakened for a short time or some such thing.

 

And again, I'm not saying that Morphine Man takes no STUN. At some point his brain is gonna say "OMG, this is too much I gotta shut down" and MM will be passed out on the floor. If a single hit causes Stunning his brain will say "OMG, this is too much, I feel dizzy". I'm definitely not removing Stunning and Knockout just because he's got a disad to feel no pain. I think we are all in agreement on that point.

 

By the way, I'm the GM. I'm just asking what you guys would do. I'd rather be prepared in case it ever comes up, but I really don't think it ever will.

 

If you want specific answers then give us specific information. Post the characters of the two characters as they were when you played them and Ill tell you exactly what I would adjudicate. Baring that, there's to many variables in character design to give a full answer.

[Robyn]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

You're right' date=' randomness, bad character design, a lack of understanding of how the rules work, inconsistency, arbitraryness, and resolution by whim is a much better way to do it.[/quote']

 

Your implication that, in not using the mechanics to supercede common sense, I must abandon common sense, strikes me as an attempt to define the choice as a false dichotomy.

 

I'll spell it out explicitly: there is a middle ground.

 

We can use the mechanics and the roleplaying. We don't have to choose between them.

 

Your sarcasm and "sublety" are neither as witty nor as clever as you seem to think.

 

Why do you assume that I would think such things? Oh, right, never mind. Sorry, I forgot; dichotomy. I can be sarcastic sans subtlety, or I can have the honesty to admit it; not both (I have to choose).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Dualistic little fellow' date=' aren't you?[/quote'] Please edit that to be less insulting / personally directed.

 

 

I'll spell it out explicitly: there is a middle ground.

 

We can use the mechanics and the roleplaying. We don't have to choose between them.

 

If you are giving a character free powers for nothing, or in this case for a Disadvantage even, thats neither good roleplaying or using the mechanics correctly, its just an abortion of the intent of a points based reason for effect system AND an inconsistent detriment to simulationism and versimilitude, which breaks the fourth wall and therefore disrupts good immersive roleplaying.

 

Its effectively the equivalent of a run time error. Something that was poorly (but legally) crafted at design time crept past the compiler into the game, encountered something that it should interact with smoothly but is too ill-defined to do so, and crashes the game while the GM and players argue / decide how to resolve it and eventually resume.

 

There is nothing positive about it, and its something that can be avoided by the person making the character with the Power that cannot affect things that don't feel pain (such as Automatons, inanimate objects, unconscious / insensate people, and suprisingly Mr. Feels No Pain) to simply define their Power(s) appropriately when crafting the character. The system even rewards them for doing so, so there really is no excuse to not do it.

 

 

 

The benefit of a strong expressive system like the HERO System with an effectively open ended character design platform is that you can define all sorts of odd abilities, and if you do it correctly they interact seamlessly with other odd abilities that you encounter later that you hadn't even thought of previously. The vast majority of possible issues and bugs can be caught at design time and accounted for, thus reducing the amount of run time problems that occur in actual game play.

 

In a group that thinks their characters thru when they are crafting them and take the time to be thorough and elegant BEFORE they enter the character into play, the actual game time can be spent almost entirely on ROLEPLAYING and using the characters immersively, freely and logically interacting with other PC's and NPC's without having to stop the game every 15 minutes to figure out just what it is their character can do today, check the rule book and FAQ, argue, reach arbitrary decisions on the fly that set precedents, or otherwise waste time trying to resolve things that should have already been established and relected using the tools available.

 

Strong mechanics used well provide a better environment that fosters better, more immersive, less interrupted roleplaying.

 

That is a dualism of two disparate elements combining to reenforce and strengthen one another, rather than the view you seem to have where one must be sacrificed to the other.

 

At any rate past conversations have indicated that we simply have widely disparate view on gaming in general. I would be lying if I said I wasn't glad when you stopped posting for a while, or if I said I wasn't dissapointed to see you return. Fortunately we are not in each other's circles so I'll never be forced to sit at the same table or game with you, and at this point I don't see any benefit to continuing conversations with you on any subject, so I'm adding you to my ignore list. I recommend you add me to yours as well.

 

Good luck with your games.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Blimey, tense in here, isn't it?

 

I don't think it need be: either in the game you are in you enforce the rule: not paid for, not got...which I prefer in theory, but doesn't always work so well in practice, a bit like communism OR you allow sfx a role in determining effect....not all the time, but when appropriate. Acknowledging a role for sfx beyond the purely despcriptive does not mean simply throwing out the mechanics: I prefer to think of it as enhancing the mechanics, but then I would.

 

In a game where this approach upsets people, don't use it, but neither approach is right or wrong.

[Robyn]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

If you are giving a character free powers for nothing' date=' or in this case for a Disadvantage even,[/quote']

 

I think the confusion here was best posed by Erkenfresh, in the post beginning this thread: if the attacker's power logically would not affect a target due to some quality it possesses, when that target has received points for a single manifestation of that quality but not paid points for any, can't this be seen as the target receiving a benefit rather than the attacker being unexpectedly limited?

 

There is nothing positive about it' date=' and its something that can be avoided by the person making the character with the Power that cannot affect things that don't feel pain (such as Automatons, inanimate objects, unconscious / insensate people, and suprisingly Mr. Feels No Pain) to simply define their Power(s) appropriately when crafting the character. The system even rewards them for doing so, so there really is no excuse to not do it.[/quote']

 

I disagree, and so do many other GM's and players who not only don't feel like anticipating every conceivable circumstance a power could encounter (no matter how unlikely or rare it would be), but do feel like actually playing their games sometime within the next century

 

The system doesn't reward us for a Limitation that only crops up one in a thousand games; this is a less than -1/4 value. If we're permitted to be as vague as "doesn't affect things that don't feel pain", though, we may as well stat out all powers as "SFX y, doesn't affect things that logically wouldn't be affected by y". Then all we have to do upon encountering a new situation is classify it as "is affected by y" or "isn't affected by y" and it's settled. This would not be a replacement for the specific conditions (which the character could still apply normally for cost reductions), but it would serve as a sort of "catch-all" category for anything the group hadn't thought of in advance.

 

Thing is, though . . . character sheets. If we're going to be adding this Limitation to all of our powers, they'll take up a lot more room. Sure, we can abbreviate it, but . . . if all our powers have that, why bother buying it? Can't it just be implicit to the SFX?

 

The benefit of a strong expressive system like the HERO System with an effectively open ended character design platform is that you can define all sorts of odd abilities' date=' and if you do it correctly they interact seamlessly with other odd abilities that you encounter later that you hadn't even thought of previously. The vast majority of possible issues and bugs can be caught at design time and accounted for, thus reducing the amount of run time problems that occur in actual game play.[/quote']

 

I don't understand, though, what's wrong with choosing to take path B, where we might end up spending 10 seconds (or, as you seem to think it would take us, 15 minutes - not an unreasonable assumption, come to think of it, given how long we've spent debating the question on this thread) once every 1,000 sessions . . . but we might not . . . or, definitely spending a lot more than 10 seconds (or even 15 minutes) before we even get to play, to cover all the contingencies that might arise during play, even when most of them won't.

 

In a group that thinks their characters thru when they are crafting them and take the time to be thorough and elegant BEFORE they enter the character into play' date=' the actual game time can be spent almost entirely on ROLEPLAYING[/quote']

 

That assumes we ever get to the point where we can play the game. Not everyone can anticipate every possible situation, flawlessly, in a short amount of time. Even those who can, might not want to, on the grounds that the time spent trying to cover all the bases would vastly exceed the time spent during actual play.

 

(This is not meant to imply that all pre-game preparation is a waste of time. Simply that some levels of preparation are "taking it too far". We can prepare for our games in advance, without taking it too far.)

 

That is a dualism of two disparate elements combining to reenforce and strengthen one another' date=' rather than the view you seem to have where one must be sacrificed to the other.[/quote']

 

I've seen a lot thrown about of how we each "seem" to have various views, mean various things, etcetera. We both seem to disagree with what is said about us, and/or about what we're saying, so I propose that - in future - we include proof-of-concept examples showing how and why we see those things, restricting them to the actions explicitly sanctioned by the other. I also invite anyone else who has an interest in telling me why what I advocate wouldn't work, to tell me what exactly they think I have been advocating

 

I will, for my part, begin by assembling a list of actual in-game situations that were proposed, what I think would be appropriate, and why.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

I would look to SFX to determine more granular interactions.

 

For instance if Mr. Causes Pain had bought this Power:

 

Cause Pain: EGO Attack 6d6; Only Vs Targets Capable Of Feeling Pain

 

and Mr. Feels No Pain had the following ability:

 

Old Painless: + 30 CON; No Figured, Only To Resist Being Stunned

 

Then I would say the two SFX interact with one another -- one is concerned with causing pain and thus exempts those that dont feel any, while the other reflects an ability to shrug off the primary debilitating effect of pain due to not feeling it. Thus Mr. Feels No Pain is immune to the Cause Pain ability -- not because of his own Power, but because part of his shtick involves a SFX that is specifically exempted by the Limitation on Mr. Causes Pain's Power.

 

That's the main area where SFX comes into the picture from a mechanical perspective for me, to resolve conditions and exceptions; the remainder of SFX is concerned with flavor and descriptives.

[Robyn]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

I would look to SFX to determine more granular interactions.

 

For instance if Mr. Causes Pain had bought this Power:

 

Cause Pain: EGO Attack 6d6; Only Vs Targets Capable Of Feeling Pain

 

Let's say it's a neural disrupter, in a modern "real-world" campaign where the genre has been specifically declared as "no magic" and "no fantasy". It disrupts the higher cognitive functions of any animal, i.e., humans; its Limitation is worded accordingly.

 

But the player hadn't anticipated that the GM would be pulling a Resident Evil twist, and the GM wasn't about to give the plot away by adjusting their Limitation, so what happens when the PC tries their neural disrupter on an animal that is technically dead and has no higher brain functions?

 

I think that, in such a case, the Limitation should be reworded to "only affects animals with higher brain functions", thus excluding zombies. If there is no Limitation, or if the difference would not cause the power to cost less, I don't see a problem with updating the power to reflect its concept.

 

That's the main area where SFX comes into the picture from a mechanical perspective for me' date=' to resolve conditions and exceptions;[/quote']

 

On this we are in complete agreement. The border, to draw this line very precisely, is between "conditions and exceptions can exist that were not accounted for during chargen" and "cannot".

[Robyn]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

OR you allow sfx a role in determining effect....not all the time' date=' but when appropriate.[/quote']

 

The tricky part, I think, is whether the GM will be intelligent enough to discern the difference between

 

A) the player of Mr. Pain arguing that his power shouldn't affect his teammate, when said teammate has just been MC'd by their enemy and such a ruling would result in a clear game benefit

 

and the player of Mr. Pain making a reasonable request to adjust his power with a Limitation so the character's concept can be accomodated (rather than create an inconsistency whereby his Pain power affects someone who logically wouldn't be affected)

 

Since all GM's are different, we can't know this in advance. My own perception would be that, since I trust my own judgement and am willing to employ it during play, the SFX can't be abused like that (I won't let it be). There's a safer route, though: if the rules are adjusted to keep SFX out of consideration during such situations, the SFX won't be abused like that - noone will ever have the chance to.

 

I'm now having evil flashbacks to Trusted Computing.

[Lucius]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Blimey, tense in here, isn't it?

 

I don't think it need be:

 

I'm with you - I don't see the reason for this level of hostility either.

 

I think there can be more than one reasonable answer to this question.

 

I WILL say that "Mr. Pain Immunity" ought to have some appropriate powers to reflect the concept, and NOT just the disadvantage.

 

But to have bought whatever it takes to protect against something that may happen once in his adventuring career, or may NEVER happen??

 

And as for "Mr. Cause Pain" supposedly he should have put a limitation on his power - for something he didn't anticipate that, again, may NEVER happen?? How much would you give him for that limitiation? Most of the things that it can't effect are already immune by virtue of having no mind and/or no STUN. He's not going to get a break on cost for one person in the world unless he has that person as a Hunted or something.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Re-engineering a palindromedary

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

And as for "Mr. Cause Pain" supposedly he should have put a limitation on his power - for something he didn't anticipate that' date=' again, may NEVER happen?? How much would you give him for that limitiation? Most of the things that it can't effect are already immune by virtue of having no mind and/or no STUN. He's not going to get a break on cost for one person in the world unless he has that person as a Hunted or something.[/quote']

 

In my opinion, this can also be interpreted as "Mr. Cause Pain" having a limitation on his power. It is a -0 limitation, because it will so rarely come into effect. It was not written out as a limitation, but rather was incorporated into his power description, or even the name of the spell.

 

People seem very down on the idea of a disadvantage creating a benefit for the character. Let's look at it from the other side. Last week, Mr. Cause Pain was able to intimidate the cowardly lackey of the master villain, who is terrified of physical pain, by threatenting to use his Cause Pain spell again. This minor benefit does not increase the cost of the Cause Pain spell. MCP got a small benefit due to his SFX. This week, MCP has encountered Mr. Feels No Pain. MFNP is immune to the Cause Pain spell, a minor drawback to that power caused by its SFX. MCP has now realized a minor benefit and a minor disadvantage due to the SFX of the power.

 

Is it somehow better that something MCP paid points for is occasionally ineffectual due to SFX than that something MFNP received points for occasionally works to his benefit? I consider the difference semantics, and the fact is that both have relevance - if we removed either the Disad or the Power, we wouldn't have the issue.

 

To the matter at hand, ask the player with the Cause Pain spell what he thinks would happen if he cast it on a person who, due to neurological damage, lacks the ability to feel pain. He may very well reply that he does not believe his spell would affect that person. Alternatively, he may provide you with a rational explanation of why it would affect that person. Either should be of some benefit in resolving the dilemma.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Isn't it standard that all SFX have some disadvantages and advantages built in to them?

 

For instance, I can use my fire powers to cause a pool of gasoline to explode, leading to much havoc. Just because my special effects are fire, and not say, ice.

 

So, for the reason of the SFX of the attack, I would probably allow it to slide in this situation.

 

Here's an alternate situation: You have a character who takes the PhysLim: Lost his legs in the War (No legs from midthigh down). What happens when a villain attacks this character, and the Hit Location comes up for feet or lower legs?

[OzMike]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

My 2 bits:

 

I'd let the Special Effects decide. Feels No Pain vs Cause Pain? No effect at that level. Feels No Pain Due To Deadened Nerves In His Skin vs Causes Pain In the Pain Centres Of The Brain? Now there is an effect. I would just get the players to define their special effects as clearly as they could - if they match up as opposites/cancelling each other out? So be it. It's a minor effect. They get a little bonus for a disadvantage.

 

But it is a disadvantage, so I would also go with mystery STUN damage. Maybe. Because STUN isn't just pain... it's consciousness and activity. A person in shock is practically stunned, but that person may not be in pain. Or maybe make them take a Vuln: 2x STUN from pain attacks that can affect them, because the sensation would be so overwhelming. And if they don't want the points for it - give them the disadvantage anyway >

 

Oh and folks? Be nice.

[tesuji]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

This may be true. (I would go for "example of players/GM not wanting to go through excessively complicated chargen"' date=' myself.) But the real question is this: do we want to break the character concept just because the [i']points[/i] weren't all lined up in advance? Or can we play the game by the concepts, and fix the points to match?

 

That one's easy. if thats all you want to know, no biggie.

 

Let it go as per SFX for the one session/event. then between sessions figure out the cost differences and go from there.

 

This assumes the Gm is Ok with this absolute pain invulnerability and eoesn't balk at it for balance purposes.

 

Like i said, i would start at cost by looking at the autmoaton power for "takes no stun" apply a l;imitation for "how many attacks will still cause stun due to being "non-pain pattacks" (probably not many so not much of a lim but each campaign can be different) and go from there. As i recall, that auto-stun thingy is huge in price due to having defenses triple in cost, but then hey, most HERO attacks are priced for stun so it makes sense.

 

So, in play spur of the moment do what feels right by concept, then fix the points between session.

 

Easy enough, as long as you are fine with the potency of that defense.

 

I never stop play for points issues, just note that we will talki later and keep going.

 

enjoy.

[Robyn]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

This assumes the Gm is Ok with this absolute pain invulnerability and eoesn't balk at it for balance purposes.

 

If this is given to the character who "doesn't feel pain", as a defense, they effectively gain Invulnerability to all such attacks, no matter their source. If this is given to the character who "causes pain", as a Limitation on their attack, they effectively grant Invulnerability to all their targets, but only for that attack from this character.

 

There are no absolutes, except when there are. There is no Invulnerability, except when there is.

 

Isn't a "doesn't affect y" Limitation effectively an absolute Invulnerability, anyway? Seems to me that the HERO system is designed to handle this sort of thing, just, not on the receiving end.

 

So' date=' in play spur of the moment do what feels right by concept, then fix the points between session.[/quote']

 

This is how I prefer to handle it, yes.

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Umm yeah. I really don't think this will come up much. If the mage casting Cause Pain on his ally doesn't work AND he wants to hurt him for some reason, he'll just start casting fireballs.

 

I just thought it was an interesting situation. You guys are taking it very seriously.

[zornwil]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

It's interesting as a situation.

 

I would likely tend towards Ghost Angel's interpretation. Because "does not feel pain" (I imagine) does not actually obviate STUN damage, I would assume the "Cause Pain" inflicts STUN damage. However, I would think that neither character (unless one or both knew something in advance about the other) would realize exactly what is happening. Mr. Cause Pain would think his attack was doing nothing given Mr. No Pain's reaction. Mr. No Pain might not realize he's losing STUN since he wouldn't have any gauge to judge by.

 

Then again, I could easily imagine allowing it to cancel out, too. I just would tend towards GA's point assuming that no mechanical changes were made in the actual effects, regardless of perceived effects. However, I might imagine that the SFX could be nuanced enough for the latter. The problem I would have is I think lots of Ego and similar attacks are only "causing pain." Depends on the campaign world, too, and the definitions of such abilities.

[OzMike]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Umm yeah. I really don't think this will come up much. If the mage casting Cause Pain on his ally doesn't work AND he wants to hurt him for some reason, he'll just start casting fireballs.

 

I just thought it was an interesting situation. You guys are taking it very seriously.

 

Look at that - it's a can!

 

And I have a can opener!

 

 

Uh-oh! This here can's full o' worms!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

A couple of points:

 

1. It is explicit from the rules that all powers carry with them advantages and limititations either too small or too infrequently occurring to warrant a cost hike or break. There is nothing wrong under either argument (rules OR sfx) in saying that a power specifically defined as 'damaging by causing pain' simply does not work against someone defined as not feeling pain. Equally there is nothing wrong with ruling that they take all the stun they just don't feel it, and there is nothing wrong with falling somewhere in the middle and applying an ad-hoc 50% damage reduction in that particular instance. Or whatever. I am not advocating an approach per se (although you have my stated bias: rules should be king, but that doesn't always work in practice, and in this case I would probably say the attack just does not work), I'm saying quite categorically that a decision the GM has made after consideration and possibly discussion is right for that particular game, and should, absent further and better consideration, be consistently applied.

 

2. Although disadvantages that apply no disadvantage are not disadvantages (or however the book says it) it is also explicit from the rules that disadvantages can be advantageous in certain situations, for instance a DNPC can have useful non-combat skills, or even powers: you just get less points because it is less of a disadvantage, on balance. I see no reason that this line of thoughts cannot be applied to every single advantage: in an appropriate situation, unusual looks will gain you an occasional bonus to presence, your fear of snakes might gain you a plus to breakout rolls when the King Serpent tries to mind control you into kissing him, or whatever. Advantages from limitations should be massively outweighed by the actual disadvantages of course, but there is nothing wrong with the points reflecting a range of effects from rarely useful to generally a problem to occasionally a disaster.

 

3. I tend to think of most descriptive text (if it accompanies a character sheet) as 0 point disadvantages: if you mention that you have a brother in politics but have not bought DNPC or psych lim, or whatever, I would be inclined to treat the brother as a potentially useful contact and a potentially useful target, but I would not generally drag him in centre stage much. If the character is supposed to be the Emporer of a star apanning civilisation, but hasn't bought the appropriate perks etc, that's fine: it just is not going to come up much.

 

4. I think there is an argument for changing the label 'Disadvantages' to something less evocative: Play Hooks, perhaps. I am sure you can come up with better. Mind you, this is Hero, and the name/label on a power/skill/rule should be considered nothing more than an identifier and should not be taken to imply anything at all

 

5. As Erkenfresh points out (and I may have mentioned earlier) this sort of thing is only going to come up if the players set on each other, or the GM makes it come up.

 

6. As zornwil points out a lot of powers cause pain - many Ego attacks being a case in point. Mind you not that many attacks are specifically defined as damaging by causing pain: the pain caused by an Ego attack may be a consequence of, for instance, the Ego attack scrambling neurons: that would cause just as much stun whether you felt it or not, and, arguably, if you were unaware of an attack, as it was not registering with you, you would not be able to realise that you were being attacked or where the attacker was. Major problem in my book: every time Mr Feels No Pain is hit he'd have to make a PER roll with some sense other than touch to spot that he'd taken a hit, then a normal PER roll to spot the attacker - usually an automatic process. That, my friends, is a substantial disadvantage and I would not begrudge the poor chap the odd bonus as a result.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Look at that - it's a can!

 

And I have a can opener!

 

 

Uh-oh! This here can's full o' worms!

 

Oh come now: this whole board is a can o' worms

 

We LIKE worms.

[zornwil]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

Nice to see you, Sean.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

I guess my point on my stance is, and someone else mentioned this but I'm too lazy to go check, that Taking STUN and Feeling Pain may be mutually exclusive concepts.

[OzMike]

Re: Disadvantage that becomes an advantage?

 

True, unless it really hurts to be put to sleep, confused, tickled... well, maybe the last one.