The book I want more then any other....

[archermoo]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

I'm sorry... maybe Derek's description here was just too sparse or something' date=' but I'm not seeing a distinction. Maybe someone could explain it so I can see the difference. (Keeping in mind that a "Big Book of Disadvantages" is absolutely [i']not[/i] what TUD would, or at any rate should, be.)

 

I'll have to say my initial take on this was "I don't understand how they could be confused with each other", so I'm having to work a bit to see if I can help.

 

The Ulitmate Disad would necessarily be about, well, Disads. Derek's idea, which I titled The Ultimate Character Background, would be a much wider topic. I guess one analogy would be that it would be like comparing "The Ultimate Flame Powers" book to "The Ultimate Energy Projector". Characters with flame powers would be addressed by both, but that is all TUFP would cover, while TUEP covers that and a whole lot more.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

I'm sorry... maybe Derek's description here was just too sparse or something' date=' but I'm not seeing a distinction. Maybe someone could explain it so I can see the difference. (Keeping in mind that a "Big Book of Disadvantages" is absolutely [i']not[/i] what TUD would, or at any rate should, be.)

Well, if it conformed to the format of recent Ultimate books, that is largely what it would be. The Ultimate books now generally contain substantial sections of the book that consist of pre-made examples, so if The Ultimate Disadvantage was done the same way, presumably a fair chunk of it would be a big list of pre-made Disadvantage examples.

 

But leaving that aside, I see the distinction between a book about using Disadvantages in the HERO System, and a book about creating RPG characters with the same level of depth and verisimilitude as a novelist would create characters, as being a subtle-but-important one. A book about using Disadvantages would have to start with Disadvantages, and then talk about how to fit various character elements to each Disadvantage, and how to GM that Disadvantage creatively, etc. A book about character creation theory (for lack of a better term) would start with the character elements (what they are, how they impact stories, etc.) and then mention how to use Disadvantages to reflect those elements.

 

For example, a book about Disadvantages might start with Psych Lims, and talk about things that might make interesting Psych Lims, how to have Psych Lims come into play appropriately, etc. It might mention, for instance, that something like "Wants To Live Up To His Parent's Memory" might be a good Psych Lim for a character whose background says they grew up as an orphan.

 

A book about character creation theory, on the other hand, might start with the idea of having a character who grew up as an orphan. What logically follows from that? What are some important literary examples of how being orphaned affects a character's growth? Are there classic cultural archetypes of The Orphan that you'd be invoking by choosing to make this character an orphan? What sorts of behaviors might be common for orphans, or what other character background or personality elements might be particularly appropriate for a character who was orphaned? And what might be the impact to the character or the story if your orphan was deliberately not typical of other orphans in cultural archetypes and other stories? Do orphans tend to be loners who have trouble working well in groups, or do they prefer groups for the sense of family and belonging? Or -- since some orphans would probably go one way on that question and some the other -- what does that choice reveal about the character? And of course, also what sorts of Disads might result from being an orphan? Not just Psych Lims, but all sorts of things.

 

The HERO System, of course, conceptually handles mechanics by Reasoning From Effect. You don't start with "fireball" and look for a power by that name. You start with the desire to cause damage in an area at range, look for powers that do that, and call the result a "fireball." But I think doing that with character background-and-personality creation (starting with the Disadvantage you want and the amount of points you want for it, and working backward to the game-world reason for the Disadvantage) -- which many gamers can tend to do, whether they're totally conscious of it or not -- can lead to rather artificial-seeming characters. So I think a book about these kinds of factors would be best served to vary from the HERO System's usual Effect-to-Cause model, and go ahead and work Cause-to-Effect.

 

Or to put it another way... Disads (especially Psych Lims) tend to be very high-level, broad-brush descriptions of a character's inner make-up. Things like "Honorable" or "Overconfident" encompass a whole lot of things. So if you're thinking about Disads while you're developing your "character sketch" (not in the artwork sense, but in the writing sense), and you're thinking "this character will be 'honorable,'" or, "this character will be 'overconfident,'" you may gloss too much over the (more interesting, IMO) underlying factors. Why is the character honorable or overconfident? What made them that way? Were they always that way? Are they honorable or overconfident in every way or situation? If not, in what sorts of ways or situations are they dishonorable or underconfident? How will that affect the decisions they make, or their outlook on the world?

 

In other words, giving a character the high-level label of "honorable" should be the end of the process... not the beginning of it. You should look at the completed, well-developed character and say, "These character traits, taken together, describe a guy that is honorable." Not start with "This guy should be honorable, so what would an honorable guy be like?"

 

I'm going on way too long, so to wrap this up... It would really be like the sort of material authors, playwrights, screenwriters, etc. learn in order to create believable, meaningful, complex people... just with a focus on applying those concepts to an RPG instead of a novel, or a play, or a movie, etc.

[Catseye]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

So....

 

What *I'*m hearing here for the most part is this... correct me if I'm wrong

 

(1) A nice big list of suggested disads already exists on the web

(2) People agree that what is in the FReD really is insufficient.

(3) People wan't MORE then just an expansion, but a bit of a rethink/redesign to make disads really reach their roleplay potential and lose the image of "how 2 m@k3 ur ch@r@ct3r teh suck"

 

Well, I can't say I disagree with any of that. 3 is more ambitious then I was asking for but I agree it would be a very very good thing.

 

As for #1... I really want an offline reference. Has anyone made that site into a PDF?

[Catseye]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Oh... PS....

 

I DO like Derek's idea, though I think its a seperate issue to a large degree. I also think the right qualifications to really write such a thing are hard to come by.

 

Lets be honest, most RPG fiction (fan, game, or professional ) is hack crap at best.

 

FWIW, though, such resources already exist to some degree in the writing community... written by people with the background to command some respect in the space.

 

eg http://www.writepro.com/

[pawsplay]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

The problem with The Ultimate Disadvantage that I see is genre balkanization. Just as an example:

 

Vulnerability: Puns, x 1 1/2

 

In most realistic games, this would be nonsensical, illegal, perhaps even abusive. Puns are harmless. But in a four color superheroic campaign, I could see this as a legitamate Disadvantage; a pun-based PRE attack, while hardly the norm, is something you might run into. Further, if you ever meet a villain called The Punster or something, he might have Drains or Ego Blasts defined as puns. So the Disadvantage might be (Uncommon), 5 points gained for a unique and interesting Disadvantage that will affect play. You have a character who is simply boggled by puns. The same character would be unwelcome in an only slightly more "straight" campaign. A character in a JLI or Avengers inspired game, for instance, might despise puns, but they probably aren't going to be visibly shaken by particularly nasty ones.

 

In a comedic superhero game, however, you might have to increase it to (A variety of uncommon effects linked by a theme) for -10 points. Villains like the Punster might be far more common, and pun-based PRE attacks might be a regular hazard. Some entity might even Summon creatures based on puns. In a particularly silly game, a character might be named Pun. Or Pun-Pun, Kobold Destroyer of Worlds.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

So....

 

What *I'*m hearing here for the most part is this... correct me if I'm wrong

 

(1) A nice big list of suggested disads already exists on the web

(2) People agree that what is in the FReD really is insufficient.

(3) People wan't MORE then just an expansion, but a bit of a rethink/redesign to make disads really reach their roleplay potential and lose the image of "how 2 m@k3 ur ch@r@ct3r teh suck"

 

1. Yes.

2. I'd say some people agree that what is in FReD is insufficient. Personally, I think it's sufficient mechanically.

3. Again, I think some people want more than just an expansion (myself among them, though I don't think a mechanical expansion is needed). Some do want a mechanical expansion.

[John Desmarais]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

As for #1... I really want an offline reference. Has anyone made that site into a PDF?

 

Yes, but a long time ago (much has been added since I did it) so I'm not really even sure where it is...

[Catseye]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

The problem with The Ultimate Disadvantage that I see is genre balkanization. Just as an example:

 

...

 

But this is also true of modifiers... the old "if its not a limitation that can come into play, it isn't worth anything" rule.

 

I don't see that as a problem, myself. The whole point of a book like this is to give suggestions to the GM, not dictate rules.

[Catseye]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

One last quick comment... to be fair Derek, I think this is too narrow minded...

 

"In other words, giving a character the high-level label of "honorable" should be the end of the process... not the beginning of it. You should look at the completed, well-developed character and say, "These character traits, taken together, describe a guy that is honorable." Not start with "This guy should be honorable, so what would an honorable guy be like?"

"

 

Inspiration can come from anywhere. Some of my deepest and most interesting characters have in fact come by starting with the limits a game's mechanics handed me and my asking the question "What about the character's personality could justify this?"

 

As long as you do the character depth stuff, I don't think ordering is really significant.

 

(As a note, this is the same reason I dislike diceless or nearly diceless "story-teller" type systems. My story telling thrives on having the unpredictable happen and then incorporating it into the story. )

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Inspiration can come from anywhere.

Oh' date=' absolutely agreed! I didn't mean to sound like I preaching a One True Way philosophy regarding character creation or anything. All I meant was, as a general rule, Psych Lims tend to be broad high-level labels, and if [b']all[/b] you consider when developing the character is the broad high-level labels, the character is more likely to seem stiff or unrealistic.

 

You can certainly make a good character by building the personality from the top-down. Building from the bottom-up just has the advantage of making sure you don't forget about the bottom.

[pawsplay]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

But this is also true of modifiers... the old "if its not a limitation that can come into play, it isn't worth anything" rule.

 

I don't see that as a problem, myself. The whole point of a book like this is to give suggestions to the GM, not dictate rules.

 

Really? Because it sounds like a menu for players, to me. The GM may exercise authority over what is allowed, but essentially we are talking about prebuilt Limitations for a good part of the book. The GMing Disads section is not going to be very long.

 

Currently, genre books can and do introduce specific Disadvantages appropriate for a setting. I can see some utility in collecting them, but honestly, I think most people get more utility from genre specific discussions of Disadvantages.

[Catseye]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Really? Because it sounds like a menu for players' date=' to me. .[/quote']

 

ahhhh yes.

 

Okay, I keep forgetting. A lot of people use the system differently then I do. I don't let my players go shopping for powers, etc through the book. I have them describe to me what they want to play and *I* build it.

 

Factoring that in, I begin to see where a number of these arguments come from.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Indeed, if a GM ever insisted on building an entire Character for me I would walk away from their table. After insulting them.

 

I've worked with GMs on building Characters. I've played in games where the GM does the initial build then worked with me afterwards to perfect it, but I have never once allowed a GM to create a charater For Me unless it's a Convention Game.

[GamePhil]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

*raises hand*

 

Of course, that doesn't do anything to convince people (at least the ones that haven't met us both) that we are different people.

 

I have met you both, and I'm completely convinced that you're the same person.

 

I would buy The Ultimate Disad if Hero decided to publish it. But then again I buy everything they publish. I'd be excited for them to publish The Ultimate Character Background.

 

I'd buy it, but unless they found a character hook to pull me in, I'd probably never read it. I don't know what would actually make the book interesting to me enough to have it do more than sit on my shelf. But, then, I've never been that interested in the Master Lists, either.

 

As for "Who would buy an Ultimate book that wasn't playing Hero?" question, I've met people that have. Ultimate Skill, for example, does a treatment of much more than how to do skills in Hero, it is a resource for a lot of real world material usable in games. That's the main one, but even Ultimate Brick has some generic ideas of what great strength can mean in a game, for example. I have no market research that tells me these aren't flukes, but the reasoning is valid.

[Lucius]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Crossposted from a recent thread on this exact topic:

 

All of which begs the question - why are Disadvantages "boring?"

 

And can they be made to be less boring?

 

 

On the Asset side of the ledger we have FIVE different categories: Characteristics, Skills, Powers, Talents, Perks.

 

On the Liability side of the ledger we have ONE recognized category: Disadvantages.

 

 

On the Asset side of the ledger Powers have all kinds of modifiers and frameworks.

 

On the Liability side of the ledger Disadvantages arguably have a "modifier" in that for example Vulnerability points double if you move from X1 1/2 to X2. There is no such thing as a Disadvantage Framework.

 

 

On the Asset side of the ledger Skills have all kinds of possible permutations of "Levels."

 

On the Liability side of the ledger Disadvantages have frequencies that come in three levels only, and nothing akin to a "level" that applies to more than one.

 

 

For twenty years all of our thought, creativity, complexity - and, therefore, interest - has gone into the Asset side. Why can't the Liability side collect a little interest too?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that despite playing Hero, Lucius Alexander is not really an accountant - a subbookkeeper at best.

[GamePhil]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Indeed, if a GM ever insisted on building an entire Character for me I would walk away from their table. After insulting them.

 

It's a valid way to do things for certain types of games. Among other things, it ensures that the PC's have abilities and character hooks that the GM can work into the game well. Even then I take player input, if they care to make it, something I often don't have these days.

 

[Catseye]

ndeed, if a GM ever insisted on building an entire Character for me I would walk away from their table. After insulting them.

 

I've worked with GMs on building Characters. I've played in games where the GM does the initial build then worked with me afterwards to perfect it, but I have never once allowed a GM to create a charater For Me unless it's a Convention Game.

 

 

Not an uncommon attitude among existing west coast HERO players.

 

Interestingly enough, when we were playtesting the original Champions in the midwest back in... (counts on his fingers) oh I think it was about 81, is that right?

 

Anyway there and then, exactly the opposite was true. Although a Gm might work with a system experienced player on details, your first character or two the GM drew up himself.

 

We almost *never* let even experienced players sit down at the table with characters the GM hadn't had a controlling hand in creating because we learned from very early experience that the potential to abuse the system was all too present and we didn't want the game to turn into a meta-game of who could abuse the rules the best.

 

To me, HERO has always represented a toolkit for building my game... but as the GM it is *my* game. I'm happy to take input and help you to get the character you want to play, but I'm not turning over the central control.

 

As I say, I am aware from experience with some of you out there that the West Coast has a very different perspective. In that sense, its nice to be working with new HERO players who don't come with preconceptions about what the game is about.....

 

I WILL RAISE AN ARMY IN MY IMAGE AND CRUSH YOU ALL!!!!

 

Oh sorry, Champions villain moment.

[pawsplay]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

ahhhh yes.

 

Okay, I keep forgetting. A lot of people use the system differently then I do. I don't let my players go shopping for powers, etc through the book. I have them describe to me what they want to play and *I* build it.

 

Factoring that in, I begin to see where a number of these arguments come from.

 

Yeah, I generally only do that with new players.

[rjcurrie]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Not an uncommon attitude among existing west coast HERO players.

 

Interestingly enough, when we were playtesting the original Champions in the midwest back in... (counts on his fingers) oh I think it was about 81, is that right?

 

Anyway there and then, exactly the opposite was true. Although a Gm might work with a system experienced player on details, your first character or two the GM drew up himself.

 

We almost *never* let even experienced players sit down at the table with characters the GM hadn't had a controlling hand in creating because we learned from very early experience that the potential to abuse the system was all too present and we didn't want the game to turn into a meta-game of who could abuse the rules the best.

 

To me, HERO has always represented a toolkit for building my game... but as the GM it is *my* game. I'm happy to take input and help you to get the character you want to play, but I'm not turning over the central control.

 

As I say, I am aware from experience with some of you out there that the West Coast has a very different perspective. In that sense, its nice to be working with new HERO players who don't come with preconceptions about what the game is about.....

 

I WILL RAISE AN ARMY IN MY IMAGE AND CRUSH YOU ALL!!!!

 

Oh sorry, Champions villain moment.

 

On the other hand, here in southwestern Ontario, when we started playing Champions in about 1982, virtually everyone built their own characters (possibly with help from the GM but more likely other players. And that was true for pretty much any game system we played. While the GM pretty much established the setting and probably presented a few character design guidelines, many of the campaigns actually centereed around what the characters decided to do. Sure, the GM would throw story hooks and enemies at the characters, but it was always up to characters as to what they did about them.

[archermoo]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Not an uncommon attitude among existing west coast HERO players.

 

Interestingly enough, when we were playtesting the original Champions in the midwest back in... (counts on his fingers) oh I think it was about 81, is that right?

 

Anyway there and then, exactly the opposite was true. Although a Gm might work with a system experienced player on details, your first character or two the GM drew up himself.

 

We almost *never* let even experienced players sit down at the table with characters the GM hadn't had a controlling hand in creating because we learned from very early experience that the potential to abuse the system was all too present and we didn't want the game to turn into a meta-game of who could abuse the rules the best.

 

To me, HERO has always represented a toolkit for building my game... but as the GM it is *my* game. I'm happy to take input and help you to get the character you want to play, but I'm not turning over the central control.

 

As I say, I am aware from experience with some of you out there that the West Coast has a very different perspective. In that sense, its nice to be working with new HERO players who don't come with preconceptions about what the game is about.....

 

I WILL RAISE AN ARMY IN MY IMAGE AND CRUSH YOU ALL!!!!

 

Oh sorry, Champions villain moment.

 

Well, I'll point out that g-a is from the east coast, and currently lives in Denver. Neither of which is the west coast. And while I probably wouldn't insult the Ref before walking away, I certainly wouldn't play in a (non-convention) game that I wasn't the one designing the character. If someone can't trust me enough to let me build my own character I certainly have no interest in spending my free time with them. I started playing Champions in '81 in Denver. Played there for a few years, moved to Oklahoma, played there for some more years, moved back to Denver and played for even more years before moving out here to the west coast. Never once have I met anyone for face to face gaming that insisted in making people's characters for them, and I've only heard of you and one other person that did. I've certainly offered (and been taken up on the offer) to make people's characters for them, but I nor anyone that I've gamed with has ever insisted on it. All of that before I ever made it to the west coast. So unless you're one of those people that consider everything west of the Appalachians to be the west coast, letting people make their own characters is FAR from west coast phenomenon.

 

I'll also note that the game was created on the west coast.

[archermoo]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Yeah' date=' I generally only do that with new players.[/quote']

 

I've generally found that letting people make their own characters with as much or as little help from me as they want has always been a pretty good hook to get them interested in the system.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

In fairness to Catseye, guys, he's mentioned that his players are new (or at least, new to Hero). There's a big difference between a GM making the characters for new players, and making the character for highly experienced players...

[Catseye]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

I've generally found that letting people make their own characters with as much or as little help from me as they want has always been a pretty good hook to get them interested in the system.

 

Sure. And I'm sure it works for some kinds of players very well.

 

OTOH the number of players playing games with limited and canned selections far out numbers the HERO players today, so certainly its not the ONLY way to interest players.

 

For my players, Im demonstrating the flexability it gives them in conception, and the ability it gives me as a GM to meet those conceptions as well as the flexibility it gives me to build different kinds of games. Those that are serious system wonks I hope to capture with the idea that they can build and run THEIR own ideal game.

 

We'll see what happens.

[Catseye]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Also... when ever I make an absoltue statement, you cna assume there is an asterisk on it.

 

Under *certain* circumstances with *very* well known and trusted players i might actually delegate work. But thats a relationship that has to come from a good deal of play time together first.

 

As a very wise GM once told me... "If you are unsure ALWAYS say NO. If you change a no to a yes later, no one minds. But lord help you if you have to change a yes to a no..."

 

Ground rules of my games are that I build the charcters in consultation with the players over what they want to play. Its also worth noting that my games are structured very much like Con games in general.

 

And Derek s right, these guys are brand new to the system.... otoh frankly very experienced players tend to concern me *more* unless I know them very well. Newbs seldom know enough to seriously abuse the system.

[archermoo]

Re: The book I want more then any other....

 

Sure. And I'm sure it works for some kinds of players very well.

 

OTOH the number of players playing games with limited and canned selections far out numbers the HERO players today, so certainly its not the ONLY way to interest players.

 

For my players, Im demonstrating the flexability it gives them in conception, and the ability it gives me as a GM to meet those conceptions as well as the flexibility it gives me to build different kinds of games. Those that are serious system wonks I hope to capture with the idea that they can build and run THEIR own ideal game.

 

We'll see what happens.

 

True, which why I didn't say it was the only thing that worked. Just that I've personally found that it works quite well. Particularly in fact with players that have only played games with limited and canned selections.