Repackaging Character Disadvantages

[SSgt Baloo]

In another thread (that I can't find right now, so don't ask) there was some discussion about how players quite often viewed character disadvantages (Disads) as a liability to be avoided at all costs. I think this is reinforced by some GMs with a "Me vs Them" mentality (I blame this mostly on Gygax's first take on D&D -- a meme that still survives today). Perhaps putting a friendlier face on Disads will help players to see them as the roleplaying opportunities they represent rather than a distasteful necessity to be ungracefully tolerated.

 

I would like to propose one possible aid to changing this attitude. How would you feel if Disads were no longer referred to by their former name, but were called "Character Hooks" or "Plot Hooks"? You can explain to your players that he now has an opportunity to define what kind of hero his character is. He can choose who his recurring villains will be, what kinds of moral dillemmas he will face, etc. You might also want to point out also that while you can judge a man by the company he keeps, you can also judge him by the enemies he's made.

 

Comments? Suggestions? Criticism? Please do.

[Mr_Yuck]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

Yeah... I've seen players go out of their way to try to take disads that would affect them as little as possible.

 

In a recent campaign, I required all the characters have a vulnerability.

One of these players tried to convince me his character should be allowed to take a vulnerability to Flashes vs Taste!!

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

One of these players tried to convince me his character should be allowed to take a vulnerability to Flashes vs Taste!!

 

Hmmm. Methinks that anyone with an avatar name of Mr Yuck would leap at the opportunity to have a player with vulnerability to flash vs taste!

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

In another thread (that I can't find right now' date=' so don't ask) [/quote']

 

Was in a thread called disadvantages....it was asking whether we'd shill for a book of disadvantages.

 

there was some discussion about how players quite often viewed character disadvantages (Disads) as a liability to be avoided at all costs. I think this is reinforced by some GMs with a "Me vs Them" mentality (I blame this mostly on Gygax's first take on D&D -- a meme that still survives today). Perhaps putting a friendlier face on Disads will help players to see them as the roleplaying opportunities they represent rather than a distasteful necessity to be ungracefully tolerated.

 

I would like to propose one possible aid to changing this attitude. How would you feel if Disads were no longer referred to by their former name, but were called "Character Hooks" or "Plot Hooks"? You can explain to your players that he now has an opportunity to define what kind of hero his character is. He can choose who his recurring villains will be, what kinds of moral dillemmas he will face, etc. You might also want to point out also that while you can judge a man by the company he keeps, you can also judge him by the enemies he's made.

 

Not sure it isn't too late, whatever they are called now people will have the idea that in Hero you have to cripple your character to get enough points to be competitive.

 

However, I'd be all for it. I'd call them Characterisation points.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

I LIKE Characterisation Points

 

I think there is a bit of a fear that 'Disadvantages' wil be used against you with extreme prejudice.

 

This is compounded by the inequalitiy between disadvantages in terms of points. A DNPC is a plot hook, we can all see that, whereas a vulnerability to fire is a cause for constant paranoia, but they are not equal in effect, as far as I can see: being vulnerable to fire (1.5x damage) gets you 10 points, whereas the DNPC can get you 10 points for being a normal on 8-.

 

I like Disadvantages as an idea, but the whole thing would probably have to be smoothed over a bit to make it less lumpy. The repackaging would be a good start though

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

... Characterisation points.

 

I vote for "Characterisation points"! Noted and repped!

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

I suppose I'm in the minority in that I'd rather take a Vulnerability than most other kinds of Disads for my supers.

 

Vulnerability to Electricity? When Thunderbolt or Megavolt jump out, you know to be extra careful and sandbag actions for dodging, and learn to ID a taser FAST.

 

Hunted: Teleios? Holy sh*t, the kinds of crap he could do as a Hunted? I'll take the extra STUN and BODY damage, thank you!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

I've always viewed them as Player Provided Plothooks.

[JmOz]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

Yeah... I've seen players go out of their way to try to take disads that would affect them as little as possible.

 

In a recent campaign, I required all the characters have a vulnerability.

One of these players tried to convince me his character should be allowed to take a vulnerability to Flashes vs Taste!!

 

I would say yes, then I would ask how "rare" he feels that should be. And then he would find out that whatever hunted he took developed a new AVLD EB vs Flash: Taste gun...might be stupid, but it is EXACTLY what the player asked for

[Pental]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

I don't think all disads fall under 'plot hook' though. A code vs killing or x2 stun from electricity is less of a plot hook than say, Watched by Dr. Destroyer.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

I don't think all disads fall under 'plot hook' though. A code vs killing or x2 stun from electricity is less of a plot hook than say' date=' Watched by Dr. Destroyer.[/quote']

 

Not everything is created equal.

 

Let's look at Vulnerability x2 STUN Electricity. Introduce an electric villain, with a personality that the Vuln. Character's Player just loves to hate. Instant rivalry, with a twist: your rival can take you out in a stand up fight. Think fast!

 

There's a plot in every corner. Some are just less obvious.

[JmOz]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

Well said. The Kryptonite Man was always interesting to me for the same reason, here is a character that is so far below superman that it should not be funny, but because of Superman's weaknesses he is able to be a real threat to big blue...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

I would say yes' date=' then I would ask how "rare" he feels that should be. And then he would find out that whatever hunted he took developed a new AVLD EB vs Flash: Taste gun...might be stupid, but it is EXACTLY what the player asked for[/quote']

 

[EDIT - reads as if I'm slagging you off JmOz - just thought that this is a perfect example of doing something by the book that can stimulate the negative thought processes of those that do not understand the way the system should work. No offence intended]

 

It is this kind of thing that plays better with players when they approach the business by understanding that they are supposed to be feeding into the characterisation of their PC in the game.

 

If, instead of them thinking "I need some points - what is almost never going to come up in play" and then getting all upset when the most unusual attack form in the world is standard kit for the local thugs in pyjamas, they thought "Hmm, I need some points. I think it would be interesting if the local villain agancy was a real threat to me every time they showed up - I'll ask the GM what weapons they use and take a vulnerability to it".

 

The whole approach is different and more collegiate between GM and player rather than the more adversarial scenario. Less chance of looking as if you have a Gotcha! attititude.

 

 

Doc

[Mike W]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

[EDIT - reads as if I'm slagging you off JmOz - just thought that this is a perfect example of doing something by the book that can stimulate the negative thought processes of those that do not understand the way the system should work. No offence intended]

 

It is this kind of thing that plays better with players when they approach the business by understanding that they are supposed to be feeding into the characterisation of their PC in the game.

 

If, instead of them thinking "I need some points - what is almost never going to come up in play" and then getting all upset when the most unusual attack form in the world is standard kit for the local thugs in pyjamas, they thought "Hmm, I need some points. I think it would be interesting if the local villain agancy was a real threat to me every time they showed up - I'll ask the GM what weapons they use and take a vulnerability to it".

 

The whole approach is different and more collegiate between GM and player rather than the more adversarial scenario. Less chance of looking as if you have a Gotcha! attititude.

 

 

Doc

 

True, but I think part of the problem is that the guy who would take a Vulnerability vs. Taste Flash effects is the kind of guy who wouldn't be willing to have the conversation you're suggesting here, which is where the problem comes in.

 

I think we all have certain disads we like a lot and other ones we don't like to take. I hate Vulnerability/Susceptibility. It's just against my nature. But I always have at least one Hunted. In the last game I built a "veteran" hero and gave him Hunted: Rogues Gallery with about half a dozen guys in it. I tend to create a personality and a history and then start looking for disads that flesh out the personality and look for characters in the campaign world that I can connect to my character. This means I often end up with heroes who have "been around a bit", but that's ok. It usually works out well for the group.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

I don't think all disads fall under 'plot hook' though. A code vs killing or x2 stun from electricity is less of a plot hook than say' date=' Watched by Dr. Destroyer.[/quote']

 

You'd be surprised. I've had a CvK of mine start plots in two campaigns. In one, the CvK came up after a bad set of rolls killed some gang members - that turned into a long running subplot dealing with my PC going to pieces over it. In the other, we had a (sentient) monster that was laying eggs. Since killing the hatchlings would have been murder, the team had to find some other way to deal with the issue, which took up a fair amount of plot.

[Mr_Yuck]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

Hmmm. Methinks that anyone with an avatar name of Mr Yuck would leap at the opportunity to have a player with vulnerability to flash vs taste!

 

 

Doc

 

 

Hahahaha!!! That is the most astute observation yet!

[Mr_Yuck]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

I would say yes' date=' then I would ask how "rare" he feels that should be. And then he would find out that whatever hunted he took developed a new AVLD EB vs Flash: Taste gun...might be stupid, but it is EXACTLY what the player asked for[/quote']

 

 

Great suggestion!

However, the player in question would then be irked that someone *actually* has his vulnerability.

Additionally, those players that took reasonable Vulns would be miffed that he has something that ridiculous where they took something more reasonable (henceforth common).

 

The same player will often get angry at other players for taking a Hunted from VIPER and so on because he feels (and somewhat rightly so) that over time they become HIS hunted too. (Guilt by association, etc).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

You'd be surprised. I've had a CvK of mine start plots in two campaigns. In one' date=' the CvK came up after a bad set of rolls killed some gang members - that turned into a long running subplot dealing with my PC going to pieces over it. In the other, we had a (sentient) monster that was laying eggs. Since killing the hatchlings would have been murder, the team had to find some other way to deal with the issue, which took up a fair amount of plot.[/quote']

 

No kidding, CvK is absolutely rife with plot potential.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

Back in my earlier GMming days, when a player would determine the commonality of a happenstance for a Disad, rather than saying 'no, that's uncommon, not common', I would MAKE it common (or Very common).

 

For example, someone with electrical powers took a Susceptibility to Water as Very Common (which, admittedly, it is ... sorta). A Very Common occurance should happen virtually every game. It helps that he didn't give any kind of qualifier ('immersion in water', for example), which meant after he burned about half his END, or any time he sweated, he shorted out.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

Back in my earlier GMming days, when a player would determine the commonality of a happenstance for a Disad, rather than saying 'no, that's uncommon, not common', I would MAKE it common (or Very common).

 

For example, someone with electrical powers took a Susceptibility to Water as Very Common (which, admittedly, it is ... sorta). A Very Common occurance should happen virtually every game. It helps that he didn't give any kind of qualifier ('immersion in water', for example), which meant after he burned about half his END, or any time he sweated, he shorted out.

 

IMO, There's a big difference between using a character disad to help flesh out a scenario and exploiting one to the detriment of the player.

[Pental]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

You'd be surprised. I've had a CvK of mine start plots in two campaigns. In one' date=' the CvK came up after a bad set of rolls killed some gang members - that turned into a long running subplot dealing with my PC going to pieces over it. In the other, we had a (sentient) monster that was laying eggs. Since killing the hatchlings would have been murder, the team had to find some other way to deal with the issue, which took up a fair amount of plot.[/quote']

 

Yeah, but in my mind I'm still breaking that kind of thing down to motivator/quirk or personality trait vs. an actual plot hook like a hunted by.

I consider myself to have a code vs. killing, and if I were to kill someone in the course of my day, I'd feel awful about it.

But the chance to kill someone accidentally as a hero always exists. It's probably going to happen at some point, and will need to be explored further, but to call it 'plot hook' seems kind of a stretch.

 

I think it's important for the GM to enforce the fact that disads should be disadventagous yes, but also 'character defining'.

And of course, every disad should eventually be explored and utilized in plot, otherwise it's not worth the points spent on it.

 

I definately won't be reheading all the character sheets with 'plot hook' vs. disad. For that matter, what are 'advantages' called at that point?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

Yeah, but in my mind I'm still breaking that kind of thing down to motivator/quirk or personality trait vs. an actual plot hook like a hunted by.

I consider myself to have a code vs. killing, and if I were to kill someone in the course of my day, I'd feel awful about it.

But the chance to kill someone accidentally as a hero always exists. It's probably going to happen at some point, and will need to be explored further, but to call it 'plot hook' seems kind of a stretch.

I definately won't be reheading all the character sheets with 'plot hook' vs. disad. For that matter, what are 'advantages' called at that point?

 

Advantages, for one thing, are a Power Construct.

Disadvantages are a Character Trait.

 

Plot Hook does not mean "story line."

 

You don't have to revolve a story around a CvK (to continue with the example), but as a Plot Hook you look at that element as something standing above other possibilities. It could be the moral hinge of the story, it could be one of several parts.

 

Plot Hooks are any elements that show up as minor or major points of the story. Anything that actively interacts with the Characters.

 

Some Plot Hooks can renamed Motivations if you want. A CvK could be a prime motivation for a Character in certain stories.

 

"I can't just take him out, I have to capture him."

 

And voila - your Player is now taking your Plot, using his Hook and creating a Story.

In the above it could easily turn into a Cat & Mouse chase between Hero and Villain.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

IMO' date=' There's a big difference between using a character disad to help flesh out a scenario and exploiting one to the detriment of the player.[/quote']

 

I agree. However I also agree that a player who says his Susceptibility is Very Common is saying he wants to encounter that Susceptibility very frequently, and the GM should be willing to follow those instructions, or advise the player that it will not be that frequent.

 

We don't see Kryptonite all that often in the comics nowadays, so it's probably Uncommon. On the Smallville TV show, it seems Very Common. The player choses the frequency - the GM should ensure that frequency is attained.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

Ideally the Player and GM talk and decide on the Frequency based on the GMs idea of the Campaign World, and the Players desires for his Characters own portion of the Story.

[GamePhil]

Re: Repackaging Character Disadvantages

 

(I blame this mostly on Gygax's first take on D&D -- a meme that still survives today).

 

True, though specifically with HERO I blame John Wick's article on how to use Disadvantages or even Powers. He must otherwise be a truly godlike GM to get people to ignore his level of animosity toward PC's and actually want to play in his games.

 

Though I do have a vast fondness for his work since Necronomonopoly.

 

I would like to propose one possible aid to changing this attitude. How would you feel if Disads were no longer referred to by their former name, but were called "Character Hooks" or "Plot Hooks"? You can explain to your players that he now has an opportunity to define what kind of hero his character is. He can choose who his recurring villains will be, what kinds of moral dillemmas he will face, etc. You might also want to point out also that while you can judge a man by the company he keeps, you can also judge him by the enemies he's made.

 

Along the same lines, Derek Heimforth once ran an unfortunately short-lived game where he gave us all of our points up front and just let us pick out Disadvantages for no points. Aside from the incentive of getting some spotlight time for our characters, he also would have given us an extra XP for a game where the Disadvantage came up. He didn't officially change the name to Plot Hook, but that is how he described them on more than one occasion.

 

This or a similar approach has several advantages. GM's can no longer feel constrained (not that we all do) to make sure that the Disads come up enough to be worth the points. Players don't have to worry about being slapped around by the GM as much, or even feel that they need to take Disads any more than are needed to help round out or define the character better. And like that. I actually had more to say on the matter, but need to get back to work.