Regrettable Disads

[Lucius]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

That would effectively be x4, but really x2 twice.

 

x2 for the first disad and another x2 for the second disad.

 

The reason they don't is that implies there's an order to the application of Disads, which implies some are more Disadvantageous than others by effect alone. Which is just territoty I'd rather not go into.

 

If I'm not mistaken (I think I read it in the "Hero Rules Questions" forum) the correct answer is to inflict damage X3.

 

You have the base damage done by whatever, say 20 pts. Then the first Vulnerability adds another 20, and the second adds another 20, for a total of 60 pts.

 

That way each vulnerability is only applied to the actual damage done by the attack. Otherwise, you'd be applying a vulnerability to damage that was "created" by the other vulnerability, and that's about as traif as applying a vulnerability to a susceptability.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Appearing as a DNPC on the palindromedary's character sheet

[Scott Baker]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

If I'm not mistaken (I think I read it in the "Hero Rules Questions" forum) the correct answer is to inflict damage X3.

 

You have the base damage done by whatever, say 20 pts. Then the first Vulnerability adds another 20, and the second adds another 20, for a total of 60 pts.

 

That way each vulnerability is only applied to the actual damage done by the attack. Otherwise, you'd be applying a vulnerability to damage that was "created" by the other vulnerability, and that's about as traif as applying a vulnerability to a susceptability.

 

I think Steve just answered this question over in this thread:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56194

 

Scott Baker

[ghost-angel]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Yeah, according to Steve's answer, and will be in the upcoming UEP, if you have a Vulnerability to two SFX and get hit by an attack that has both in it, you do some funky math - in the case of both being x2 it comes out to x4.

[JmOz]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Regretable disad: From Hero Games

 

Suseptibility to loosing my foci...Character is named Howler...

[SKJAM!]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

This was actually in a V&V campaign of many years ago--the character was an artificial humanoid created by a government agency. He was ungodly powerful, but could be turned off with a simple phrase. To be specific, "stand down."

 

The second or third adventure, one of the other player characters accidentally said the phrase during the post-battle press conference.

 

Guess who suddenly had the need for industrial level earplugs?

[input.jack]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Yeah. I like the idea of playing through a new Artificial Intelligence awakening and developing, to see where it will go. A while back, I had an AI player character (kind of along the lines of a Terminator) who was designed as a bodyguard (not a killing machine), and could be reprogrammed through a port at the base of the skull. This was especially easy to do when the character was "reformatting" (basically...asleep).

 

Once the other PCs got wind of this, my poor character was being re-written practically every game session. One of the other Players was a clever, abusive b*st*rd, and pretty much in the first session when it became clear that my character was programmable, gave me a command that prevented me from refusing to be reprogrammed by his character.

 

I had to start keeping a list of all the commands I was being given. And the list got -long-. Eventually I had trouble functioning, because almost everythign I wanted to do was somehow prohibited by one (or more) of my directives.

 

I talked to the GM (a good friend) and explained that I wasnt really having fun anymore, and he said "Trust me."

 

The next session, my character was hit with a massive jolt of electricity that basically reset the character to the base directives. And I REMEMBERED what had been done to me!

 

The other Players had the temerity to look surprised when I started taking them down, one by one. (And I did it just that way; one by one. No need to attack them all en masse when alone they fall much more easily).

 

Needless to say, abusive reprogrammer-guy got into a tizz and started shouting that I had somehow cheated, and after some pretty harsh words from both sides he left the game group.

 

So maybe that wasnt such a bad Disad after all

[Metaphysician]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Yeah. I like the idea of playing through a new Artificial Intelligence awakening and developing, to see where it will go. A while back, I had an AI player character (kind of along the lines of a Terminator) who was designed as a bodyguard (not a killing machine), and could be reprogrammed through a port at the base of the skull. This was especially easy to do when the character was "reformatting" (basically...asleep).

 

Once the other PCs got wind of this, my poor character was being re-written practically every game session. One of the other Players was a clever, abusive b*st*rd, and pretty much in the first session when it became clear that my character was programmable, gave me a command that prevented me from refusing to be reprogrammed by his character.

 

I had to start keeping a list of all the commands I was being given. And the list got -long-. Eventually I had trouble functioning, because almost everythign I wanted to do was somehow prohibited by one (or more) of my directives.

 

I talked to the GM (a good friend) and explained that I wasnt really having fun anymore, and he said "Trust me."

 

The next session, my character was hit with a massive jolt of electricity that basically reset the character to the base directives. And I REMEMBERED what had been done to me!

 

The other Players had the temerity to look surprised when I started taking them down, one by one. (And I did it just that way; one by one. No need to attack them all en masse when alone they fall much more easily).

 

Needless to say, abusive reprogrammer-guy got into a tizz and started shouting that I had somehow cheated, and after some pretty harsh words from both sides he left the game group.

 

So maybe that wasnt such a bad Disad after all

 

Heh, this would be a great grey villain origin.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

It's one thing to find surprising effects from disads from the environment/GM, but to be abused by other players is just disgusting. I'm glad you were able to ditch the abusive player by giving him a dose of his own medicine.

[input.jack]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

It's one thing to find surprising effects from disads from the environment/GM' date=' but to be abused by other players is just disgusting. I'm glad you were able to ditch the abusive player by giving him a dose of his own medicine. [/quote']

 

Thats usually how I handle that kind of thing, if I can, in a game. So long as the other character is acting "in character" within the game world, I feel its best for the campaign to settle my differences in-game as well.

 

And thanks!

[Gideon]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Thats usually how I handle that kind of thing, if I can, in a game. So long as the other character is acting "in character" within the game world, I feel its best for the campaign to settle my differences in-game as well.

 

And thanks!

99% of the time I agree whole hartedly.

 

And I think the decision you made was great.

 

The thing is, sometimes people don't seem to get the message and keep making characters who will pull stunts like that. I have yet to see it in a Champions game, but I've seen it numberous times playing other things (especially D&D).

 

The same person (over the course of 2 games) played:

 

• A fighter who "thought the paladin needed to grow a spine" and decided the best way to get that to happen was to goad him and try to make him fall.
  
• A cleric who refused to cast healing spells on anyone other than herself
  
• A wizard who wouldn't learn how the spells she was studying worked until she tryed them out in actuall combat.

 

The wizard was the last staw for the group. The character gained Evard's Black Tenticles as a spell for leveling (3.0 D&D, not 3.5), but the player claimed he never read the description of the spell's effect prior to casting it for the first time. That would have been fine, had that "first casting" not been durring a huge fight. The character cast the spell, gigantic black tenticles appeared randomly in the room the rest of the characters were fighting in (not one arriving anywhere near an enemy), and the tenticles proceeded to grapple and kill two party memebers and zero enemies.

 

The characters asked the wizard to leave upon returning to town. The players and the GM asked the Wizard's player to leave immediatly after the character was asked.

[CourtFool]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Needless to say' date=' abusive reprogrammer-guy got into a tizz and started shouting that I had somehow cheated, and after some pretty harsh words from both sides he left the game group.[/quote']

 

Weak. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it.

 

I have yet to see it in a Champions game' date=' but I've seen it numberous times playing other things (especially D&D).[/quote']

 

Isn't backstabbing part of the rules for The Game Which Shall Not Be Named.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

The thing is, sometimes people don't seem to get the message and keep making characters who will pull stunts like that. I have yet to see it in a Champions game, but I've seen it numberous times playing other things (especially D&D).

 

The same person (over the course of 2 games) played:

 

• A fighter who "thought the paladin needed to grow a spine" and decided the best way to get that to happen was to goad him and try to make him fall.
  
• A cleric who refused to cast healing spells on anyone other than herself
  
• A wizard who wouldn't learn how the spells she was studying worked until she tryed them out in actuall combat.

 

 

In character responses:

 

- "Given your differences, one of you has to go and the Paladin brings more to the group. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

 

- "We find your assistance to our group insufficient and have decided to recruit a cleric who is more compatible with our organization. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

 

- "Your lack of preparation and skill in your area of expertise is unacceptable in our team. We have decided to recruit a mage with greater skills. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

 

What's wrong with the player characters making decisions based on their experiences, rather than that glowing tattoo of "PC" on the annoying/problematic character's forehead?

 

If a player in any game wants a character with drawbacks, great. But the onus is on him to design a character that brings positive value to the team, and the other players are well within their rights to, in character, reject a PC whose character does more harm than good for the group. In fact, it's pretty lousy role playing if they DO just go blindly along because "it's a player character".

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Isn't backstabbing part of the rules for The Game Which Shall Not Be Named.

 

No, it's part of the psyche of bad gamers, who exist in every system.

[Gideon]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

In character responses:

 

- "Given your differences, one of you has to go and the Paladin brings more to the group. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

 

- "We find your assistance to our group insufficient and have decided to recruit a cleric who is more compatible with our organization. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

 

- "Your lack of preparation and skill in your area of expertise is unacceptable in our team. We have decided to recruit a mage with greater skills. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

 

What's wrong with the player characters making decisions based on their experiences, rather than that glowing tattoo of "PC" on the annoying/problematic character's forehead?

 

If a player in any game wants a character with drawbacks, great. But the onus is on him to design a character that brings positive value to the team, and the other players are well within their rights to, in character, reject a PC whose character does more harm than good for the group. In fact, it's pretty lousy role playing if they DO just go blindly along because "it's a player character".

 

You are right. It is the kind of thing that is best resolved in game. Normally that is how I prefer these things to work.

 

(There is a LARP that runs near me where PK of any kind for any reason results in your character being docked XP for the first offense and you being kicked out of the game for the second offense. I refuse to play the game on principle and think the concept it both silly and distasteful.)

 

The player/ characters in question all had what we thought of at the time as redeeming characteristics and at first we liked them. There was more to each of those characters than the problems I mentioned. The big problem (with the player) is he refused to play characters that were not problematic in some way. This wasn't discovered in earnist until the "evard's incident", but still.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

That sort of thing is why we have a standard policy that all submitted PCs must have answers to 1) "Why would you want to be a member of the party/team?" and 2) "Why would the party/team want you to be a member?" We have a handful of others depending on genre, but those two are really key for heading off disaster.

[sinanju]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

If a player in any game wants a character with drawbacks' date=' great. But the onus is on him to design a character that brings positive value to the team, and the other players are well within their rights to, in character, reject a PC whose character does more harm than good for the group. In fact, it's pretty lousy role playing if they DO just go blindly along because "it's a player character".[/quote']

 

Which is why my standard list of character design rules for many years included, among others, these two prominently placed rules:

 

1. No silly characters. 'Nuff said.

 

2. Your character must be able to work and play well with the other player characters. If your behavior, personality, hygiene, etc. are such that you will not be able to do so, think up someone else.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

No' date=' it's part of the psyche of bad gamers, who exist in every system.[/quote']

 

Very true - this is a player problem, not a system problem. [Absent a setting which encourages such behavious - say, Paranoia - but then everyone knows the ground rules going in.]

 

The player/ characters in question all had what we thought of at the time as redeeming characteristics and at first we liked them. There was more to each of those characters than the problems I mentioned. The big problem (with the player) is he refused to play characters that were not problematic in some way. This wasn't discovered in earnist until the "evard's incident"' date=' but still.[/quote']

 

I see no problem with the other party members simply removing the character when the problems become evident. If the player doesn't fit in with the game, then a discussion on that issue can also be necessary. However, the other PC's should feel no obligation to treat a PC differently than an NPC exhibiting the same behaviour.

 

That sort of thing is why we have a standard policy that all submitted PCs must have answers to 1) "Why would you want to be a member of the party/team?" and 2) "Why would the party/team want you to be a member?" We have a handful of others depending on genre' date=' but those two are really key for heading off disaster.[/quote']

 

Yup. There's nothing wrong with designing a character who wants to stay at home and be a shopkeeper. But expect to be bored frequently as your character will not be with the rest of the group, where the adventure is taking place, if he's at home tending to his shop. Maybe your next character should be an adventurer.

[Gideon]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

There's nothing wrong with designing a character who wants to stay at home and be a shopkeeper. But expect to be bored frequently as your character will not be with the rest of the group' date=' where the adventure is taking place, if he's at home tending to his shop. Maybe your next character should be an adventurer.[/quote']

 

Hey!!! I have a charcter who would like nothing more than to be shop a owner.

 

Actually he is a Trading Coster owner, and does spend most of his time running a shop (or sailing and trading goods at port). He is still an adventurer, he just hires people to work the store when he is off killing monsters. In fact at this point most of the party "works" for him.

[Gideon]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Now, back on topic...

 

Mute.

 

I had a character in a GURPS fantasy game who was mute. The GM approved it, and ALL the players new beforehand. I took all the skills needed to comunicate non-verbally to people including sighn-language and guesturing. The GM decided that the group needed a healer so he made a "PC". His PC knew sign-language and let everyone know it as soon as they met me.

 

Well, the group decided that since someone knew how to sign, that they didn't need to pay any attention to me, and would simply make the healer double as my interpreter. After about 8 game sessions the GM got fed up with it and forcably had my character's voice "return" (mind you he had been mute since birth).

 

When my character chose not to use his newly aquired voice, the GM "lost my character sheet" and told me that if I wanted to keep playing I would need to make a new character.

[Steve]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Now, back on topic...

 

Mute.

 

I had a character in a GURPS fantasy game who was mute. The GM approved it, and ALL the players new beforehand. I took all the skills needed to comunicate non-verbally to people including sighn-language and guesturing. The GM decided that the group needed a healer so he made a "PC". His PC knew sign-language and let everyone know it as soon as they met me.

 

Well, the group decided that since someone knew how to sign, that they didn't need to pay any attention to me, and would simply make the healer double as my interpreter. After about 8 game sessions the GM got fed up with it and forcably had my character's voice "return" (mind you he had been mute since birth).

 

When my character chose not to use his newly aquired voice, the GM "lost my character sheet" and told me that if I wanted to keep playing I would need to make a new character.

 

This reminds me of someone I knew who played a wookie in a Star Wars game. Since few humans speak that language, all communication had to be routed through his partner.

[Gideon]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

This reminds me of someone I knew who played a wookie in a Star Wars game. Since few humans speak that language' date=' all communication had to be routed through his partner.[/quote']

 

There's a difference. I didn't go into the game expecting anyone to know sign language. In fact I expected nobody to know it when the game started and that I would need to guesture/ sign everything my character wanted to get accross to other characters.

 

Instead the GM had his PC (whom I didn't know was going to exist when I mady my character) know how to sign, and both he and the other players wanted me to pass him a note any time I said something (just incase the healer chose to edit what I said).

[Cancer]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Though it isn't a HERO system game (it's a Buffy campaign) I have a fully-in-control werewolf character who (by collective agreement about what it means to be a werewolf) can't speak words while in wolf form. His vocalizations are canine noises only when in that form. Now, since his human form is a wimpy little geeky guy, in combat he's always strictly in wolf form. Makes for interesting roleplaying for me; I think the team overlooks the character when I go silent (I restrict myself to player-to-GM comments, mechanics questions, etc., when he's in wolf form) but that's OK. It's part of the game.

 

I can easily imagine it happening that his wordlessness could be exploited by the bad guys ... something like that happened once, but it turned out not to be the combat situation I thought it was ... but so far it hasn't happened. When it does, I'm OK with that, too.

[Scott Baker]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Now, back on topic...

 

Mute.

 

I had a character in a GURPS fantasy game who was mute. The GM approved it, and ALL the players new beforehand.

 

I had a player in a Champions game choose Mute. I, and some of the other players, tried to convince him it might not be a good idea. He insisted, so I allowed it.

 

It was really more of a disadvantage for the player than the character since he always forgot that his character couldn't talk and would try and start, or join, conversations. Needless to say, the player soon tired of being reminded to write a note (no sign language interpreters), or ignored--depending on the player. He soon asked for a change, and we let him.

 

Scott Baker

[ghost-angel]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

I've had one character that was mute. It was a small group, it ended up working well. One of the other players had a chatterbox character, ther two of them hooked up pretty quickly. I communicated in game with notes if I had something important to say, otherwise I was a series of facial expressions and gestures.

 

I would never do it with certain groups, or a group larger than four players though - so I sadly rarely get to play the character.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: Regrettable Disads

 

Lo those many years ago, I once played a mute Halfling Whistler. I did my R2-D2 impression during the entire game to communicate. Everybody loved him