Learning from the mistakes of others

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Like so many things' date=' the concept of roleplaying support in RPGs is something that's more easily described than defined. An example I like to use is from a RPG I've come to enjoy: [i']Hollow Earth Expedition[/i] from Exile Games Group.

 

In the game, players can select a Flaw for their character. This Flaw (more or less equivalent to Disadvantages in Hero) does not provide the player with more points to build their character. What it does is provide opportunities for the player to get Style points when roleplaying the Flaw in the game. These Style points can then be used to increase dice rolls, reduce damage, or otherwise benefit the character.

 

So the use of Flaws and Style points in the game provide an instant reward for good roleplaying that help enhance the story and increase the fun.

 

That's an interesting way of handling Disads/Flaws, though it seems to me that it can create a situation where the player will *choose* to not buy off the Disad (and forever stay the Farmboy despite being a trained Jedi) so that they won't loose out on the Style Points that clearly benefit their character.

 

Doesn't Hero System recommend that the GM give bonus XP for Good Roleplaying -- like roleplaying their Disads? Perhaps if the roleplaying is of the nature of trying to overcome the Disad, the XP could be "earmarked" by the GM for specifically buying it off. That way, XP awards for working though one's problems don't get spend on that new OAF: Lightsaber.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

You could also read it the other way. In our games we always treated it as "Don't do it without the GM's permission." (which is a little more awkward to read)

 

This prevents situations like, "Oh, didn't I tell you? My DNPC: Sgt. Davis is now a Psych Lim: Distrusts Police." Keeps the GM in the loop.

 

exactly.

[casualplayer]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

A HEROS character's disadvantages are not neccessarily 'static throughout a campaign.' There are two ways to change them.

 

The first, as has been mentioned, is buying off the disad. But it does cost the character something in 'advancement' (so to speak).

 

The second is to change the disad when the circumstances are appropriate.

 

Quote 5E, p212 under 'Changing or buying Off Disadvantages':

 

"With the GM's permission, characters can also alter their Disadvantages during the coruse of the campaign. This can reflect the way the character is being played and helps promote character development. Perhaps a character begins the campaign with the Psychological Limitation Greedy. As the campaign progresses, this could be changed to Generous, or even Idealistic. Similarly a character with the Social Limitation Secret Identity could be discovered and have to trade in the Disadvantage points into a Hunted, or even a Public Identity. A character who manages to kill or capture his Hunted may acquire another one - the former Hunted's ally, for example. So long as the points remain constant and the GM gives his permission, the character's Disadvantages can evolve to suit the character."

 

So character change and evolution is actually written into the HEROS rules after all...

 

If your players aren't begging to buy off their disadvantages, you aren't twisting the GM thumbscrews enough.

 

The whole point of drama is tough choices and the consequences. Without disadvantages, the GM has no idea what your character might consider a tough choice or what might be a meaningful consequence. And, honestly, neither does the player. Just a long series of "making it up as you go along."

 

The satisfaction of accomplishment comes from achieving despite constraints.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

You could also read it the other way. In our games we always treated it as "Don't do it without the GM's permission." (which is a little more awkward to read)

 

This prevents situations like, "Oh, didn't I tell you? My DNPC: Sgt. Davis is now a Psych Lim: Distrusts Police." Keeps the GM in the loop.

 

That's how I see it . It's a note to say that "Hydrophobic Man" doesn't suddenly lose his Fear of Water and replace it with Fear of Dust Bunnies without the GM looking at it and approving it. They could have put a Stop sign next to it, but since it wasn't in the powers section, maybe the writer thought a little note might be better. It could have been written a hundred different ways, but that won't stop someone from reading it any way they want. We've always allowed Disads to be bought or swapped out as the story progresses and they can be shown as a result of the campaign.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

You could also read it the other way. In our games we always treated it as "Don't do it without the GM's permission." (which is a little more awkward to read)

 

This prevents situations like, "Oh, didn't I tell you? My DNPC: Sgt. Davis is now a Psych Lim: Distrusts Police." Keeps the GM in the loop.

 

It also prevents the character from having The Disad Du Jour.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

It also prevents the character from having The Disad Du Jour.

 

Like "must appear in every comic the company makes"?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Like "must appear in every comic the company makes"?

 

No, that's probably the Spider Man Disad -- having more titles that can reasonably be attributed to the character's popularity. I was thinking more like having the Disad change on a session-by-session (or quicker) basis. Kinda like a Variable Limitation of Disadvantages...

[Acme]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I was thinking more like having the Disad change on a session-by-session (or quicker) basis. Kinda like a Variable Limitation of Disadvantages...

 

I actually had a character with Variable Disadvantages. He had a VPP with a limited selection of Power Suites available, each with an accompanying (custom) Disadvantage.

[Istaran]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I actually had a character with Variable Disadvantages. He had a VPP with a limited selection of Power Suites available' date=' each with an accompanying (custom) Disadvantage.[/quote']

 

That sounds pretty cool.

I have a character with 'multiple personality disorder' as a psych lim. In play it's a much broader tapestry of psych lims that would add up to quite a bit more than the 10 pts I took, but are mitigated by the fact that they're not all always in play.

 

Though randomly switching to another personality mid-conversation has further drawbacks of its own. Especially since the personalities don't get along.

[tesuji]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

So character change and evolution is actually written into the HEROS rules after all...

 

Thanks for the rules cite. When i mentioned both buying off and changing existing disads in the original post i didn't bother to find the passages pemitting it, just figured people knew them anyway.

 

Other topic -

 

Several people commented on their roleplayers who take extra disads without points and even more to the point who take sufficient disads from personality and background elements they intended to play anyway.

 

again thats dead spot on in support o my points.

 

They did not need DISAD rewards in system to choose to have these character flaws (taking some even after they earned no points) and even the ones for points "they intended to play anyway".

The disad reward system built into the rules did not result in them taking character flaws or even encourage it... they were going to do it anyway.

 

Thats exactly what i was talking about when the exact same choices are made in "personality off the sheet" systems. Those same good players would likely choose (whether written down or not) what hero clls disads but which are really personality and background if playing DND or traveller, which did not provide an in game mechanical accounting cost element to them.

 

the difference is work done to accountify the disads and stat up specific rolls to counter them etc, instead of just playing how you think he would play. I dont see in these cases any gain to justify that work.

 

On the reverse side are the players who did not want to have them, but were indeed "encouraged" to take them for mechanical benefits and wind up then with stuff as a part of their character they simply didn't want - which results in less fun.

 

Another topic - gm wont know what the player wants without them - Sorry but again in every game i have ever played or been in, including traveller and dnd, the gm asked for a background and a description which included some info. It never started with a "unknown mystery fighter" well maybe some tourney style one offs did but no campaign or even mini-campaign.

 

But the key is its all about control and direction anyway.

 

Some of my players give me lots of background and hooks while others provide less, sometimes a lot less.

 

the former then see a very personalized plot weaving their ideas into the story. I tend to call it a past-oriented character as much of the story deals with and is derived from their background elements and that player is usually thrilled with how much their contributions added to the play making it personal to them.

 

The latter finds a very much forward-oriented story whenre its about the new stuff that happens to them.

 

For example - a guy with a hunted finds that adversary often behind the plots and often directing things at him, so he is saving his dnpc sister or finds out his aunt is dating the evil doctor.

 

example - the guy with no hunted finds out an evil mastermind is behind many plots and meets a new girl when he saves her from the new bruiser in town.

 

 

the latter isnt worse than the first or less enjoyable, but in a system which PAYS for the hunted, he would be at a real disadvantage - built on fewer actual points than the rest.

 

for players who have traits like these in mind anway, and who would roleplay them even if they weren't bonus points, the accounting doesn't help. For players who didn't want those traits on their character "making" them take them isn't going to make their game more fun, usually. its just going to saddle them with things they weren't looking for and at the same time instructing the GM to make sure he makes them sufer for their flaws. Didn't someone say if they werent trying to get rid of the disads the gm wasn't doing it right, just above a bit?

 

Well my view is a little different - I prefer it when everything on their character, everything they take time to write down, is stuff they WANT and to have little or no stuff they are trying to get rid of, they being the player. the notion might change as time andevolution works its magic, of course.

 

The last supers game i ran, using another system which did not reward these kind of flaws, all of my players provided me backgrounds and personalities, had biases and such as part of their characters and a few even had vulnerabilities. The character's personalities changed as the game went on fairly straightforwardly. the biggest difference was the guy in the bunch more focused on tactics when he plays, our most rollplayer-esque guy, did not for once have a vulnerability or susc and he had even more fun. more than once he commented on how glad he was to paraphrasing his word "not have to be running an angst ridden neurotic who is hunted by many and has a silver bullet to watch out for. its good to just play a super who is fairly happy with his lot in life for a change instead of 150 pts in "screw me" stuff..." etc

 

As an aisde, in the last few hero games i ran, i kept lowering the disads req and raising the base points.

 

Has anyone ran HERo either pointless in a campaign or where they didn't have hardly any disads or all base points ("its a 350 supers game and you dont have to take any disads and they dont earn points for you anyway")

 

if so, did you winds up with no-personality no background tabula rasa pcs?

[tesuji]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

If your players aren't begging to buy off their disadvantages, you aren't twisting the GM thumbscrews enough.

While yours was in humor, I have known gms who thought that way. My belief is the reverse, if they players have something on their character they are driven to begging to remove, why in the world did i let it get that far before saying "sure no problem" as we focus on what they find fun.

 

 

The whole point of drama is tough choices and the consequences. Without disadvantages, the GM has no idea what your character might consider a tough choice or what might be a meaningful consequence. And, honestly, neither does the player. Just a long series of "making it up as you go along."

uh... nope. See many posts above about how people are choosing to fill their disad slots with stuff they were going to do anyway. I have as gm as much or more info and usually better info, about player character drives and motivations when everything i get in their background is "what i want" and not "what i put down to earn some extra points".

 

With hero style "take 150 in disads" I as gm have to gues "is this trait something he really wanted and will enjoy seeing played out OR is this trait something he took for the points and really isn't going to find all that interesting".

 

On the other hand, when the same kind of info comes in the background for his dnd character or his supers character or his traveller character, i know (because he got no bonus for it) "this is something he wants".

 

 

The satisfaction of accomplishment comes from achieving despite constraints.

 

a player who wrote down 150 pts in numbers beside his character's list of personality and background traits is not going to be more constrained than one who just wrote them out freeform in a background writeup without numbers. Similarly, a pc who is not angst ridden with a sick aunt dating a supervilain and vulnerability to green eye beams is not going to have tougher choices than one who is, tho he will likely have different problems, not related to his background and biochemistry.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

You're not going to get meaningful insight into player behavior in taking disads or not until you run the same games (fully implemented disads vs non-point bearing disads) with both longtime hero system gamers and novice hero system gamers.

 

Longtime hero system gamers are used to the notion of designing character backgrounds with disads built in. Longtime D&D players aren't. Even if you take the point bearing aspect away from disads, I still find longtime hero system gamers designing character backgrounds with the same elements as before.

 

I was playing in a hero system game with point-free disads for a while. All of the players are longtime hero system gamers and all of them had character backgrounds that included elements that would have been hunteds, psych lims, physical lims and others.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

In my very first introduction to Hero System (for a Superhero game), I was exposed to Character Disadvantages in such a way (system-wise) that the idea forever changed how I think about characters. If there had been no CP attached to them, that connection would have taken longer, and may have never been made. Before Hero System, I never made a character that had any truly negative aspects.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

In my very first introduction to Hero System (for a Superherp game)' date=' I was exposed to Character Disdvantages in such a way (system-wise) that the idea forever changed how I think about characters. If there had been no CP attached to them, that connection would have taken longer, and may have never been made. Before Hero System, I never made a character that had any truly negative aspects.[/quote']

 

I've noticed that more and more games are having some kind of flaws/disadvantage system where the players get points of some kind for taking them. The 7th sea system comes to mind, and (naturally) Hackmaster. I think there was a western game with something similar. Ok, so three (maybe) games. Other games had random tables to get bonuses or penalties, Arduin comes to mind, and Rolemaster had tables (they had tables for everything, but I don't remember one like Arduins' Bust size table). I think more games had things like that.

 

I think the idea that flaws were worth something made them a starting point. We had characters pick up (non-point) flaws during the campaigns, but at least Hero (and the random roll games) provided a basis for further development. At least, IMO.

[Maur]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I've noticed that more and more games are having some kind of flaws/disadvantage system where the players get points of some kind for taking them. The 7th sea system comes to mind' date=' and (naturally) Hackmaster. I think there was a western game with something similar. Ok, so three (maybe) games.[/quote']

 

GURPS, D6, Shadowrun, Deadlands (classic and Savage Worlds, not sure about D20). There are also addon products for D20 sold on places like rpgnow.com that add a flaws system.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I have a little confession to make. When I am running games I largely ignore the PCs disadvantages so long as they are running about right on their state of mind and flag up any vulnerabilities and such.

 

I discourage the enrages/berserk disadvantage because it can cause all kinds of problems, and I largely ignore hunteds because I tend to plot out my scenarios with villains to fit the bill of what i need and provide a challenge to the players and it is frankly disruptive to have other villains turniong up and joining in.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'll try and work in plot elements when I'm writing the scenario (or, as is more often the case, when I'm ont he way to the game and realise I have not written the scenario) and I'll use disadvantages for inspiration, but, largely, I forget them. I do feel an odd comfort knowing they are there though and, if nothing else, they can be quite handy to illustrate the history and background of the character.

 

I'm fortunate in playing with people who do take the role playing aspect quite seriously and so we actually do have characters, with little ticks and foibles that make them real, so perhaps disadvantages are less important than they would be with other players. As SteveZilla says I suppose, having been exposed tot eh idea of disadvantages, it has kind of stuck. So much so that i often don;t need their actual presence any more.

 

Weird, huh?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I quite like the Disadvantages in Hero. I think they're even balanced better than in some other games. When it gets in the way I tend to simply change the mix of Base Points vs. Maximum from Disadvantages (I might start a fantasy game with 100 Base/150 Total instead of 75 Base/150 Total or whatever).

 

But the place where I find that mixing roleplaying with mechanics/system is absolutely essential is in the award of experience points. Devaluing combat and even devaluing success to a certain degree (actually allowing characters to learn from their mistakes! ) is a great thing in my opinion.

 

This is where I find the D&D leveling, geometric experience progression, awards based on level ("100 experience times character level for an insightful idea" or whatever) and such to be totally outdated and backwards. Not sure how 4e does it, but 3/3.5e didn't help matters any. Sure, you could change experience awards (which I typically did when GMing AD&D). But the more they make it a wargame and not a roleplaying game, the more they build in all the challenge ratings and assumptions about what characters will have at what level and all that, the harder it becomes and the less the system ultimately encourages roleplaying in my opinion. Just another turn off for me.

[casualplayer]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I have a little confession to make. When I am running games I largely ignore the PCs disadvantages so long as they are running about right on their state of mind and flag up any vulnerabilities and such.

 

I discourage the enrages/berserk disadvantage because it can cause all kinds of problems, and I largely ignore hunteds because I tend to plot out my scenarios with villains to fit the bill of what i need and provide a challenge to the players and it is frankly disruptive to have other villains turniong up and joining in.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'll try and work in plot elements when I'm writing the scenario (or, as is more often the case, when I'm ont he way to the game and realise I have not written the scenario) and I'll use disadvantages for inspiration, but, largely, I forget them. I do feel an odd comfort knowing they are there though and, if nothing else, they can be quite handy to illustrate the history and background of the character.

 

I'm fortunate in playing with people who do take the role playing aspect quite seriously and so we actually do have characters, with little ticks and foibles that make them real, so perhaps disadvantages are less important than they would be with other players. As SteveZilla says I suppose, having been exposed tot eh idea of disadvantages, it has kind of stuck. So much so that i often don;t need their actual presence any more.

 

Weird, huh?

 

I've never rolled a Hunted or a DNPC. Why would you want to surrender control of your game to a handful of dice? I don't allow anything more than an 8> for either unless the game is specifically set up to accomodate that extreme, "see every day" frequency.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Yeah. I rarely roll them either. Usually I just figure out based on the frequency and such how much role they will have in the story. I've rolled them in the past every once in a while when hurting for some story or filler. Then I'll look at the characters and start rolling Hunteds and stuff and see what turns up, hoping that will get me pointed in the direction of something to do with the game. Heh.

[nexus]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I use Hunted/DNPCs rolls are a guideline mostly unless I'm just trying to brain storm ideas. DNPCs usually come into play more in blue booking and subplots in online games so the issues they bring up can be fully fleshed out not just kidnap victim of the week. Psychological and Physical limitations I try to keep in mind during the game for when they come up and sometimes tweak scenarios to trigger if they haven't come up frequently enough. Oddly as a GM I feel leery about Vulnerabilities and while I don't ban them outright I discourage them.

[Egyptoid]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Oddly as a GM I feel leery about Vulnerabilities and while I don't ban them outright I discourage them.

 

Wow. In many games I've GMed I require a Vulne. And I like them to have a Suscept. also. Unless their origin precludes such an idea.

For example, Hercules is weak versus Poison based attacks,

not because of anything from Marvel comics,

but because of the classic legend with the Centaur.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

While yours was in humor' date=' I have known gms who thought that way. My belief is the reverse, if they players have something on their character they are driven to begging to remove, why in the world did i let it get that far before saying "sure no problem" as we focus on what they find fun.[/quote']

 

Agreed. The thing to remember is that disads are supposed to make the character's life miserable, not the player's.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Wow. In many games I've GMed I require a Vulne. And I like them to have a Suscept. also. Unless their origin precludes such an idea.

For example, Hercules is weak versus Poison based attacks,

not because of anything from Marvel comics,

but because of the classic legend with the Centaur.

 

Generally I hate vulnerabilities, but that is because I tend to make high-DCV but rather fragile characters. A Vulnerability likely makes the difference between one lucky hit KO'ing my characters, and one lucky hit killing them outright.

 

In the end, my characters tend to be 'vulnerable' to AEH/Explosions, rather than special effects.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I use Hunted/DNPCs rolls are a guideline mostly unless I'm just trying to brain storm ideas. DNPCs usually come into play more in blue booking and subplots in online games so the issues they bring up can be fully fleshed out not just kidnap victim of the week. Psychological and Physical limitations I try to keep in mind during the game for when they come up and sometimes tweak scenarios to trigger if they haven't come up frequently enough. Oddly as a GM I feel leery about Vulnerabilities and while I don't ban them outright I discourage them.

 

often I use the old Central casting books with detailed possible events for your hero's history for different genres and roll up events for the hunters and DNPCs ( and players) and see how they fit together for ideas. Many very strange combinations have made interesting stories and strange bedfellows.