A new system of disadvantages

[Sean Waters]

A new system of disadvantages

 

I’ve been thinking a lot about disadvantages, following some recent disussion on other threads, and I have some issued there. I’m a firm believer in not tearing something down unless you are willing to replace it with something, so here you go. I think this system has a number of useful features, not the least of which is increased creative control and a better balance of points gained against utility, actively encouraging role playing and a much more open approach that I think contrasts nicely with the precise build strictures of character creation. I’d welcome any constructive criticism.

 

Summary

Instead of disadvantages we decide our character’s personality, history and weaknesses, each of which gives different sorts of game related bonuses or penalties, or XP consequences. Personality is defined by a series of preferences that encourage role-playing but also help to define that character in game terms by their beliefs and taboos. History acknowledges that more experienced characters may start with more utility, but tend to learn more slowly. Weaknesses directly trades penalties in game for increased starting ability, and is the most analogous to current disadvantages, in many ways.

Personality

 

This is what makes you who you are, and how you work; likes, dislikes, phobias and drives. Sometimes it will dictate your course of action, sometimes it will give you the strength to make the right decision. Personality traits fall into three categories: Likes and dislikes, the mildest form of personality trait, for instance, and describes the character’s preferences. Drives and phobias, however, describe psychological processes the character has almost no control over. You can take up to 50 points of personality traits.

It is recommended that the GM does not award whole XP, but 1/10th points (or miniXP: mXP) for each role play instance, and is wary of the character who works the system: generally you can not gain more than 1 XP per session for role playing, although the GM may decide otherwise for a particular game. Each time the GM rewards personality role play, he awards the appropriate mXP to that character. At the end of a session, you total your mXP. If you have 10, you zero the count (whatever it might be) and gain 1 XP. If you have less than 10 you may carry them over tot eh next session.

Personality traits should not be defined too broadly. They are there to make the character more interesting to play, not for the XP award. For instance, if a character is driven by ‘Justice’, it can be difficult to define what that means. That is not to say that you can not take that as a personality trait, but you should give more detail and possibly examples of what you mean by justice.

If you role-play the character according to the personality you have determined, you can gain XP. If you play the character in such a way that you override the defined personality trait, the GM may downgrade or remove that personality trait entirely, and you lose the opportunity to gain bonus XP for role playing. As an option, the GM might ask the character to accumulate 1 XP debt (XPd) against personality traits each time they go against it in a role playing situation. If you accumulate 10 XPd against a phobia, for instance, it becomes an aversion, another 5 and it becomes a dislike, another 5 and it vanishes entirely.

Likes and dislikes are worth 5 points each. It is generally your choice whether, and how you role-play them. However, in some situations, a like or dislike will be relevant to the mechanics of the game: if you like redheads, and you are being seduced by a redhead, for example. In that case the GM will assign a bonus or penalty, depending on the situation, to any roll you may make, or that may be made against you equal to + or – 1 on a 3d6 roll, or + or –1d6 on a damage roll. Whenever a game bonus or penalty is used, you neither gain mXP nor lose XPd as the dice, not you, are determining the outcome. The GM must be careful not to overuse this or introduce double jeopardy: only one modification per resolution. If you are being mind controlled by a redhead, she might get +1 on her ECV roll OR +1 on her damage roll. If you are being seduced, she might get +1 on her seduction roll, or you might get –1 on your opposed roll. In some situations a like or dislike is irrelevant to this 1 point modification. If you are being shot at by a redhead, she will never get a bonus to her attack roll or to her damage roll, although you might well have the opportunity to earn mXP depending on what your reaction is. Note that you can benefit from the modification: if someone is trying to mind control you to hurt a redhead, they might take –1 on their ECV roll or –1d6 damage. Role-playing a like or dislike is usually worth 1mXP.

Attractions and aversions are worth 10 point each. These aspects of personality are important to you. Exactly the same rules apply but the bonus or penalty is now + or –2 on 3d6 or + or –2d6 on damage rolls. Role-playing an attraction or aversion is usually worth 2mXP.

Drives and phobias are worth 20 points each. They are hard to ignore, virtual compulsions. Exactly the same rules apply but the bonus or penalty is now + or –4 on 3d6 or + or –4d6 on damage rolls. Role-playing a drive or phobia is usually worth 4mXP.

History

 

An experienced character will have more time to accumulate skills and powers and will have back-story: your will have enemies and friends, people who want your help, or people who want your heart, reputations and so on. You can take up to 50 points in History XP. There is a problem though – this acts like a loan, which you have to repay with interest: it costs 6 XP to pay off 5 points of history, and, until you do so, any XP you spend is at half value. If you start off with 50 points of history in a 300-point game, you will be more powerful than characters without a history, but they will eventually become more powerful than you, if you both earn the same XP. Even once you have paid off your XP debt, the history remains until you role-play it to a conclusion. Note that you can be a new hero and still have a back-story – it does not necessarily imply you are an old, grizzled warrior. Once a game starts you may well accumulate new history, but you do not get any additional points for doing so.

For 5 points you can have an element of history that rarely troubles you, and when it does, it is of a minor nature.

For 10 points you can have an element of history that rarely troubles you but has quite major consequences when it does, or that troubles you frequently but is little more than a nuisance.

For 20 points you can have an element of history that often causes problems for you and those problems are usually very serious.

Weakness

 

You get additional character creation points for taking weakness. They make you less able in some situations, so you get to balance them out with more powers and abilities. You can have up to 50 points of weakness. You can ‘buy off’ a weakness at the rate of 2XP for 1 point of weakness, but you can generally only do so with the GM’s permission by role-playing. A GM might also allow your weakness to become worse in game: doing so gives you 1 extra XP for each additional 2 points of weakness. Generally there is little or nothing you can do to avoid the problems that a weakness causes you, other than avoiding the situations in which they occur.

For 5 points you have a weakness that causes you social problems, or gives you penalties in combat. In social situations you suffer –2 on social rolls or –2d6 effect, at the GM’s option. Penalties in combat are –1 or –1d6, at the GM’s option. Such penalties should not occur frequently. Unlike Personality, weaknesses NEVER benefit you.

For 10 points you have a weakness that causes social problems, penalties in combat, or causes you harm in unusual circumstances. You either suffer –4/-4d6 in social situations, –2/-2d6 in combat situations or 1d6 damage or 5 point loss of ability (for example you might lose 5 STR). The situation should not occur frequently. ALTERNATIVELY you suffer the penalties as for a 5 point weakness but in much more common situations.

For 20 points you have a weakness that causes penalties in combat or harm in unusual circumstances. You either suffer –4/-4d6 penalties in combat or 2d6 damage/10 point loss of ability. The situation should not occur frequently ALTERNATIVELY you suffer the penalties as for a 10 point weakness but in much more common situations.

Note damage and ability loss usually continues each phase of exposure, but may be healed. A GM might allow damage/ability loss over a longer period: a turn or a minute, perhaps, but typically any such loss should be greater and cannot be healed whilst exposure continues. Damage/ability loss should not generally be fatal immediately. Fatal damage or ability loss only accumulates once the character is unconscious/ability totally drained, and is generally at a much slower rate.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

Hmm.

 

I like it on the surface, but how do you handle one of the things I really like about the current version, which is that it allows both a variation on severity (Xd6, etc.) and frequency (Common, Uncommon, etc.)

 

This to me is why the system as written works as well as it does; everything beyond that to me seems like nomenclature. While I'll agree outright that a re-explanation may be in order, I'd also submit that what I like most is what I don't see here, and that's a similar level of overall flexibility.

[JackValhalla]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

The principle seems good. But unless I am missing something, the math is a bit broken. Or, perhaps we just need some time and effort put into fixing the math. Allow me some examples.

 

I can take a personality trait, for 5 character points. This will cause me to take a -1 penalty in certain social situations that apply. I may gain XP, or fractions thereof, for roleplaying this. If it is too disadvantageous, I can neglect this disadvantage, if I am willing to accept a penalty of an XP, that is then used to buy off the disadvantage in question.

Or, I can take a weakness for 5 character points. This will cause me to take a -2 penalty in all social situations. I never gain anything for this beyond the initial character points, and I may never neglect it, no matter the circumstance, save by paying 10 experience points.

 

Hmm, or I could take three Weaknesses, (call 'em "Shrimp", "Wuss", and "Pansy") and take a -5 to STR, a -5 to CON, and a -5 to BODY, and get 50 character points that cost me 25 points of characteristics. It would cost me 100 xp to buy off these weaknesses... so it looks like my wussy little pansy shrimp is never going to grow up. Unless, of course, the GM lets me buy those stats up without buying off the disadvantage.. but I don't see that happening easily.

 

I think I need clarification or an expansion of these proposed rules. As written, they break easily under stress.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

Hmm.

 

I like it on the surface, but how do you handle one of the things I really like about the current version, which is that it allows both a variation on severity (Xd6, etc.) and frequency (Common, Uncommon, etc.)

 

This to me is why the system as written works as well as it does; everything beyond that to me seems like nomenclature. While I'll agree outright that a re-explanation may be in order, I'd also submit that what I like most is what I don't see here, and that's a similar level of overall flexibility.

 

That the current system alows a great deal of...certain types of detail...I do not contest. I think the detail gives a false impression of legitimacy though.

 

To take an example, a common 1d6 susceptibility that causes damage per phase nets 20 points. A common 2d6 susceptibility that causes damage per turn also nets 20 points.

 

Same value, the first is much more dangerous though: there is no real balance, just an ability to define. You can do that with a weakness as I suggest. It can be woolier, sure, but with disadvantages it is all about how often the GM creates a situation where it matters in any event.

 

Given that the actual penalty you recive from a disadvantage is all about how the GM wants to play it, no matter how precise it looks, truly it is not.

 

You can be as precise as you like with defining a weakness, and the value - 5/10/20 guides the GM as to when and how it should come in to play.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

A new system of disadvantages

 

Personality

 

 

One issue I dislike is that the mXP rounding disappears. The guy who starts with 9 wants the game to end as soon as he picks up a 10th so the bonus doesn't vanish.

 

It also seems that points are gained for both the severity of the affliction (5, 10 or 20 points) and the frequency with which it will arise (more opportunities to earn xp) but not the impact on the character. Role playing a Drive for Justice and a Phobia of Sunlight both net the same points, but in most games, the Code will not disadvantage the character as materially.

 

Why shouldn't you get XP for being disadvantaged (penalties to rolls) in game? This is your disad coming up in play, after all.

 

History

 

The only way I ever get normal xp is by paying these off - what if I want my rich and varied history to impact the game long-term? I get to be weaker than everyone else over time. And both the guy with 5 points of History and the guy with 50 have their xp halved, yet they didn't get the same extra points to spend.

 

Weakness

 

These seem much more disadvantageous than the others, as already noted.

 

Sean, I would be interested in seeing the existing disad's classified by category, and perhaps some conversions of common disad's to this format.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

The principle seems good. But unless I am missing something, the math is a bit broken. Or, perhaps we just need some time and effort put into fixing the math. Allow me some examples.

 

I can take a personality trait, for 5 character points. This will cause me to take a -1 penalty in certain social situations that apply. I may gain XP, or fractions thereof, for roleplaying this. If it is too disadvantageous, I can neglect this disadvantage, if I am willing to accept a penalty of an XP, that is then used to buy off the disadvantage in question.

Or, I can take a weakness for 5 character points. This will cause me to take a -2 penalty in all social situations. I never gain anything for this beyond the initial character points, and I may never neglect it, no matter the circumstance, save by paying 10 experience points.

 

Hmm, or I could take three Weaknesses, (call 'em "Shrimp", "Wuss", and "Pansy") and take a -5 to STR, a -5 to CON, and a -5 to BODY, and get 50 character points that cost me 25 points of characteristics. It would cost me 100 xp to buy off these weaknesses... so it looks like my wussy little pansy shrimp is never going to grow up. Unless, of course, the GM lets me buy those stats up without buying off the disadvantage.. but I don't see that happening easily.

 

I think I need clarification or an expansion of these proposed rules. As written, they break easily under stress.

 

This doesn't work quite like disadvantages.

 

You can take a personality trait for 5 points, which will allow the GM to create situations where you can role play to gain extra XP. You can decide to ignore that personality trait (but if you do, why did you bother with it in the first place?) and what you lose is the ability to increase your XP earning rate. You get no 'up front' benefit at all.

 

OR you can take a 5 point weakness. You get 5 points of extra character points up front. You can buy it off the disadvantage with (double) XP , or increase its potency in game. The advantage is all up front.

 

Two characters starting the game, the one with history or weakness is most powerful, but the one based on personality has the most potential. The character with a history wll beat the one with weakness, if he can exploit the weakness, but, whilst a character with history starts as the most powerful, they have the least potential.

 

History also gives an up front benefit, but at the penalty of a slower rate of earning XP.

 

A weakness does not prejudice/damage you in all social situations (or combat situations), just the ones it relates to. How often the situation comes up that causes the problem helps to determine the value. It is not the same as simply reducing STR. It is like reducing STR when exposed to kryptonite, for example.

 

Of course, you don't have to pick one: you can mix and match. I might even suggest that you get to pick one group, and take a larger number of points from that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

One issue I dislike is that the mXP rounding disappears. The guy who starts with 9 wants the game to end as soon as he picks up a 10th so the bonus doesn't vanish.

 

That was just a suggestion: a way to alow frequent role playing rewards without allowing the XP earnings to become runaway. The precise details will need playtesting. You don't want to encourage munchkin role playing

 

It also seems that points are gained for both the severity of the affliction (5' date=' 10 or 20 points) and the frequency with which it will arise (more opportunities to earn xp) but not the impact on the character. Role playing a Drive for Justice and a Phobia of Sunlight both net the same points, but in most games, the Code will not disadvantage the character as materially.[/quote']

 

I didn't make that clear enough - the points are just a counting method. You get nothing up front, just the ability to earn XP faster.

 

Why shouldn't you get XP for being disadvantaged (penalties to rolls) in game? This is your disad coming up in play' date=' after all.[/quote']

 

Because, when you are disadvantaged (or even advantaged - it can be useful to be loyal to your team - harder to mind control you to betray them) and it involves a roll, you have no choice. To get an XP bonus you need to role play, not roll play.

 

 

 

 

 

The only way I ever get normal xp is by paying these off - what if I want my rich and varied history to impact the game long-term? I get to be weaker than everyone else over time. And both the guy with 5 points of History and the guy with 50 have their xp halved' date=' yet they didn't get the same extra points to spend.[/quote']

 

You don't have to take points up front, even if you do have a rich and varied history, and if you don't then you don't take an XP earning penalty.

 

Bear in mind that if you do take a lot of history then you will be considerably more powerful than other starting charatcers - but old dogs find it harder to learn new tricks. There has to be a penalty for that up front advantage.

 

 

 

These seem much more disadvantageous than the others' date=' as already noted.[/quote']

 

Playtesting would be needed, but weaknesses balance up front power without any ongoing XP penalty. They have to hurt

 

Sean' date=' I would be interested in seeing the existing disad's classified by category, and perhaps some conversions of common disad's to this format.[/quote']

 

This is not a simple re-classification, so straight conversion is problematic.

 

Broadly:

Personality = Psych Lim/Enraged

History = DNPC/Hunted/Reputation/Rivalry/Social Limitation

Weakness = Dependence/Physical Limitation/Susceptibility/Unluck/Vulnerability

 

Age/NCM and accidental change are just build considerations

[prestidigitator]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

I like it. I'll take my usual time to ponder it more thoroughly, but my first impression is a very good one.

 

The one part that I really don't like and wouldn't use myself is the character point interest on History and Weakness. I think if a character got 5 points in the beginning it should cost them 5 points in the end. I understand that the character who takes the loan (so to speak) may have some more power and utility for that buy-off period than someone who didn't, but they've got the in-game disadvantages as well. As for spending experience, to get back on level with less disadvantaged characters they'll already be spending experience to buy off their disadvantages while others are spending it on new abilities. Also, it creates a sort if hysteresis if you will (memory), and I like to be able to look at a character sheet and have the points added up no matter the order in which things happened (more of a stateless mechanism).

 

So I wouldn't make the disadvantages any more expensive to buy off than they netted in the beginning, and I wouldn't penalize characters for spending points on things other than buying off the disadvantages. At most I would limit the relative amount that can go to other things (e.g. no more than half your points on anything other than buying off your History) rather than charging double for other things.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

What I'm wondering Sean is whether when you are roleplaying bits and pieces whether those should feed a contacts and favours pool that you can then use later - using your background material to bolster the connection between the character, the players roleplaying and the background cast?

 

I suppose you could also fit hunteds etc into a similar system to contacts and favours - hunteds and paybacks....

 

I kinda like it but I want to see more work.

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

This is very much a work in progress. I like the idea of using History, or world related 'disadvantages' (for want of a better word at present) to fund world related advantages, at least from an ongoing XP PoV.

 

As to the points balancing: yes, I was a little wary of that myself. There are other ways you can do it, from an accounting point of view (for instance, if you take 50 extra 'history' points, you also take a 50 point 'history loan' which has to be paid off first: the points balance.

 

The precess of thinking about disadvantages and XP is a useful one though, to my mind: i do like to get the skin off things to look at the underlying structure

[tesuji]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

Since the non-mechanical issues seem to b troublesome, how about borrowing from FATE and dumping them into ASPECST.

 

an ASPECT is a trait which isn't necessarily a positive thing or a negative thing but sometimes one, sometimes the other, which can be called up when applicable for a bonus or called up when applicable as a penalty.

 

EXAMPLE - Defeated Dr Doom and the legion of Doom (crossover episode) in the famous "Hey, did anyone see where Central City went?" near disaster

 

The Gm could invoke this to serve as penalty or plot hook fodder at any time. (when used it provide a "fate point" aka HERO PT or if you want to think hero terms why not "a one time use dice of luck" too the player for "i use this against you") this "against you could be "Dr Doom sends his regards" followed by a blaster pistol that fits the pcs vulnerability or just a simple "hey i remember you, this guy is a cape..." etc.

 

for good it could be used like fame or rep to gain bonuses in certain situations and maybe for PRE attack "you think you can take me on? Doc Doom though so too."

 

anyway the meant and potatoes is that these are NOT part of the accounting at all. They can be very flexibly defined and utilized for a lot of the "soft" disads history etc.

 

In more traditional HERo approach, this is like unto a package deal where you have "the good stuff and the bad stuff" all rolled into a "they will balance each other out" for the soft less rigidly defined aspects (pun intended) of the character.

 

Now since hero doesn't have fate/hero pts, my usual substitute has been "one use luck die" especiallywith the very flexible options for spending luck in 5e.

[Tech]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

This thread sounds like it should be in the 6th edition rules area.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

Sean's allergic to those forums...

 

[Blackberry]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

That was just a suggestion: a way to alow frequent role playing rewards without allowing the XP earnings to become runaway. The precise details will need playtesting. You don't want to encourage munchkin role playing

 

I would suggest just ditching that and adapt the Burning Wheel voting method.

 

At the end of each session, have a vote. Players can nominate people who acted particularly well in accordance with their personality traits. Give those characters who get at least a nomination and a second 1 XP.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

Interesting. I really don't like the mXP thing though. Besides being a lot more accounting for the GM it seems like it could lead to some sort of "meta gaming roleplaying" (if that makes any sense), with players actively looking to assert their personality points as often as possible to gain more XP rather than simply roleplaying their characters in response to the situations presented.

[JackValhalla]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

I might allow that the current Disadvantage system is bent, but it's not broken. I don't see a need for alternative systems. Some parts of it look good, and I may even adapt part of it as house rules in a future campaign, if my players don't mind. In particular, I like the Personality Traits that can influence a character for better or for worse without representing full-blown Psychological Limitations, and give a quantifiable basis for roleplaying XP.

But, as a whole I find it overly limiting and simplistic. I think that it excludes more concepts and builds than it includes. I think that it will take many playtests before the math is balanced for fun and fair play with minimal opportunity for munchkinism. And, after that playtesting, I don't think you'll find a significant improvement over the current Disadvantage mechanics.

So, I don't mind melding the Personality traits with Tetsuji's recommendation, or instead using the Burning Wheel method mentioned earlier. But the History and Weakness sections look like they penalize player characters excessively, and both lack flexibility for character design.

 

If the XP penalty for History is removed, and the buyback costs are readjusted to 1-to-1, that'd be a step in the right direction. If point caps were raised, so that I could take 75 points or so in a category (still capped at 150 overall), I'd be more amenable to using it. If the History and Weaknesses were expanded and clarified, that would help. Right now you have a lot of very relative values, and that means lots of room for miscommunication and difference of opinion. There's a reason that Hunteds and DNPCs have die rolls and stat totals attached to them, for example. Weakness as written may simulate Susceptibility and Dependence well enough, but it lacks a mechanism to convert Vulnerabilities or Distinctive Features that are recognizable and potentially problematical without being vile enough to cause social penalties.

And, I contest your statement that NCM and accidental change are build considerations. Certainly, one could use limitations to simulate accidental change, but that works against the spirit of Limitations and Disadvantages. Changing accidentally does not make a Multiform less powerful or useful, and it does not affect shapeshifting powers detrimentally, but it is a handicap to the character as a whole, causing a slew of problems. Those problems are normally solved after the change has reversed, and cause difficulty in interactions and relationships, among other things. Normal Characteristic Maxima is a disadvantage that I particularly enjoy. Any player that wants to take it is welcome. A player should get special dispensations for being willing to handicap their character in that way. Plus, it is often very genre-driven, and it is often focal to a character's design and concept.

 

All of this provided in a spirit of constructive criticism. I apologize if my tone was a bit strong at times.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

The XP 'costs' of taking 'History' are clearly not popular Part of the idea here is that not everyone will want to take the maximum points they can for a starting character. Some indeed might create a character who is at or close to minimum points but has a lot of expansion potential. If the buyback cost is 1 to 1 there is little incentive NOT to take the maximum 'History' - the character will always be at least as good as someone who does not take it and will have far more utility for the first part of any campaign until the others have 'caught up'.

 

It seems artificial to me that almost every character wil start at 200+150, but they do it because there is really very little incentive not to.

 

As to balancing costs, well, I'm convinced that the current system only seems balanced because we have lived with it for so long. Its very 'precision' hides substantial balance inequities. I can provide many examples if you don't believe me.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

anyway the meant and potatoes is that these are NOT part of the accounting at all. They can be very flexibly defined and utilized for a lot of the "soft" disads history etc.

 

In more traditional HERo approach, this is like unto a package deal where you have "the good stuff and the bad stuff" all rolled into a "they will balance each other out" for the soft less rigidly defined aspects (pun intended) of the character.

 

Now since hero doesn't have fate/hero pts, my usual substitute has been "one use luck die" especiallywith the very flexible options for spending luck in 5e.

 

That's another neat take. And it would allow GMs to tailor the benefits of taking these...let's call them "complications"...to suit the game and the group of players as well. For a light campaign the players wouldn't have to think too hard and the GM could somewhat downplay their effect and make them balance pretty well. For more serious, story-heavy campaigns the players could be encouraged to take them by the GM's stated intent of rewarding them more favorably in the long run, with little guilt over the matter. The GM could make them severely limiting and greatly rewarding, or could make them slightly limiting and slightly rewarding, just as long as they balance out or are slightly advantageous to the character in the end (as a reward for interesting and imaginative character creation/growth).

 

Separating them from the character points also seems to me to relieve a lot of the stress over both feeling the "burden" of coming up with the points for the abilities you want (Total Points, or as far from it as you can stomach), and over the worry of treating players unequally (Experience). There's already enough stuff you can spread your points out on to make "unequal power levels" for the same number of Character Points (don't need to have someone at the peak power level of the campaign? then spend a few points on interesting Background Skills or something...). It also relieves the GM from the feeling of having to work in all Characters' Disadvantages into the story frequently enough to account for their value.

 

For other twists on the in-game bonuses, how about allowing a the character to Push without making an Ego roll in a related situation (when appropriate to the game)? Favors or temporarily-gained Perks might be an idea. Maybe even a sort of medium-duration Aid to an appropriate Power, Skill, or Characteristic (maybe the character gets an adrenaline boost or a burst of euphoria/inspiration as (s)he overcomes an obstacle, meets up with a bit of his/her past, uses his/her anger over a situation to crush the opposition, etc.). I could even see this coming into play sort of like some of the temporary powers you see superheroes gain in a storyline, as "their GM" buffers them up a bit for the monumental load of bricks that are about to (or already did) drop on the poor character. Heh heh.

 

Sometimes GMs (**raises hand**) don't like to see arbitrary Experience buys, too, but often want some kind of story justification ("You've been hanging out in a dusty basement reading for three months but you want to increase your Str and Con?!"). While not furnishing actual Experience Point awards, this kind of thing could still provide inspirational opportunities and justifications for character growth (spending that Experience). Hmm.

[tesuji]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

 

It seems artificial to me that almost every character wil start at 200+150, but they do it because there is really very little incentive not to.

 

As to balancing costs, well, I'm convinced that the current system only seems balanced because we have lived with it for so long. Its very 'precision' hides substantial balance inequities. I can provide many examples if you don't believe me.

 

Sean, not to be snide but seriously, of course everyone being at 200+150 seems artificial. It is. Someone picked a number out of thin air and told everyone "in this game this is the most you can have" and because of that decision everyone winds up at that score.

 

if you want more variety dont tell them "200+150" but instead say "200 base pts with whatever reasonable disads you get me to say yes to" and establish the "combat scope" of the game with dcv, ocv, dc, rule of x or whatever.

 

But as long as the gm for a game picks a "hard figure" for "most you can spend" people will go for that max. Most people dont want to be the weakest guy. As long as the gm emphasizes "total cp matters" by giving them a score to reach, they will follow his lead most of the time.

 

disadvantages dont make the final result seem artificial, its that the gm set an artificial score for the players.

 

imo

 

etc

 

 

as for showing us the inequites, go ahead.

[tesuji]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

FWIW in games i have run over the years, i see more ready "evlution of character" in games where disads and stuff are not linked to accounting. If its written on the sheet that they are afraid of spiders and it takes xp to buy it off, it tends to stay, stagnant. if it is just "for fun" then after the harrowing episode where they invade lloths lair and come out alive, note AFTER, then the next time a daddy long legs shows up, they just chuckel and say "i met your great grand ma and she was a real pain in the ..." etc.

 

Like in Hunt for red october where by the end of the film the fear of flying is over and done with.

 

That's another neat take. And it would allow GMs to tailor the benefits of taking these...let's call them "complications"...to suit the game and the group of players as well. For a light campaign the players wouldn't have to think too hard and the GM could somewhat downplay their effect and make them balance pretty well. For more serious, story-heavy campaigns the players could be encouraged to take them by the GM's stated intent of rewarding them more favorably in the long run, with little guilt over the matter. The GM could make them severely limiting and greatly rewarding, or could make them slightly limiting and slightly rewarding, just as long as they balance out or are slightly advantageous to the character in the end (as a reward for interesting and imaginative character creation/growth).

 

Separating them from the character points also seems to me to relieve a lot of the stress over both feeling the "burden" of coming up with the points for the abilities you want (Total Points, or as far from it as you can stomach), and over the worry of treating players unequally (Experience). There's already enough stuff you can spread your points out on to make "unequal power levels" for the same number of Character Points (don't need to have someone at the peak power level of the campaign? then spend a few points on interesting Background Skills or something...). It also relieves the GM from the feeling of having to work in all Characters' Disadvantages into the story frequently enough to account for their value.

 

For other twists on the in-game bonuses, how about allowing a the character to Push without making an Ego roll in a related situation (when appropriate to the game)? Favors or temporarily-gained Perks might be an idea. Maybe even a sort of medium-duration Aid to an appropriate Power, Skill, or Characteristic (maybe the character gets an adrenaline boost or a burst of euphoria/inspiration as (s)he overcomes an obstacle, meets up with a bit of his/her past, uses his/her anger over a situation to crush the opposition, etc.). I could even see this coming into play sort of like some of the temporary powers you see superheroes gain in a storyline, as "their GM" buffers them up a bit for the monumental load of bricks that are about to (or already did) drop on the poor character. Heh heh.

 

Sometimes GMs (**raises hand**) don't like to see arbitrary Experience buys, too, but often want some kind of story justification ("You've been hanging out in a dusty basement reading for three months but you want to increase your Str and Con?!"). While not furnishing actual Experience Point awards, this kind of thing could still provide inspirational opportunities and justifications for character growth (spending that Experience). Hmm.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

The XP 'costs' of taking 'History' are clearly not popular Part of the idea here is that not everyone will want to take the maximum points they can for a starting character. Some indeed might create a character who is at or close to minimum points but has a lot of expansion potential. If the buyback cost is 1 to 1 there is little incentive NOT to take the maximum 'History' - the character will always be at least as good as someone who does not take it and will have far more utility for the first part of any campaign until the others have 'caught up'.

 

This comes down to game style. If characters take no history, they largely live in a vacuum. No Hunteds, DNPC's, Watched, etc. No connection with the game world. Of course, you could write all these things into your background and not take points for them, but then there is little incentive to take such unrewarded 'History'.

 

It seems artificial to me that almost every character wil start at 200+150' date=' but they do it because there is really very little incentive not to.[/quote']

 

It is artificial. It is set not for verisimilitude but for play balance. No one wants to play the sidekick - players want to be the hero, so a measure of artificial "characters start more or less equal" game balance is imposed.

 

History sounds like the old edition D&D theory that Magic Users were balanced because they were virtually useless at 1st level and grew to near-omnipotence at high levels - balance over campaign life.

 

Characters in short campaigns will take lots of history because the Growth issue won't be long enough to disadvantage them, where characters in extended campaigns will lose too much compared to those who get their full xp, so campaign style will dictate whether History is a good idea.

 

While I won't claim the current system is perfect, I see insufficient improvements to justify your proposed modifications.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

Sean, not to be snide but seriously, of course everyone being at 200+150 seems artificial. It is. Someone picked a number out of thin air and told everyone "in this game this is the most you can have" and because of that decision everyone winds up at that score.

 

if you want more variety dont tell them "200+150" but instead say "200 base pts with whatever reasonable disads you get me to say yes to" and establish the "combat scope" of the game with dcv, ocv, dc, rule of x or whatever.

 

But as long as the gm for a game picks a "hard figure" for "most you can spend" people will go for that max. Most people dont want to be the weakest guy. As long as the gm emphasizes "total cp matters" by giving them a score to reach, they will follow his lead most of the time.

 

disadvantages dont make the final result seem artificial, its that the gm set an artificial score for the players.

 

imo

 

etc

 

 

as for showing us the inequites, go ahead.

 

 

Not snide at all - it is a good point. What I'm trying to accomplish is some system reason why a player who is concerned about their character being effective would perhaps choose not to add as many points as they can.

 

I'll do the inequities thing properly this evening when I have the time, but one that does not really require any calculation is the idea of Hunteds.

 

Realsitically if one team member takes HUNTED: VIPER, then they are foisting it on the whole team AND they are getting the benefit of a team to soften the effect on them. Some disadvantages, and hunted is but one of them, are not really 'personal'. Moreover, if you take a full 50 points of Hunted, the GM is unlikely to have them all show up together, just because it is awkward and artificial to run, and in any event, the 'timescale' for hunteds is per adventure, not per session. Given that you are going to be facing some sort of opposition in a game in any event, is it really a disadvantage to tell the GM ahead of time that you want it to be VIPER?

 

An 8- VIPER HUNTED (As powerful, harshly punish) nets you 10 points.

 

Viper features in adventures irregularly.

 

Compare that to a vulnerability to a common attack where you take 1 1/2 x damage, say a vulnerability to fire. That could easily come up every other session, and, should you be hit by such an attack, the added damage will almost certainly take you out. That also nets you 10 points.

 

I'm just not seeing the balance at all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

Realsitically if one team member takes HUNTED: VIPER, then they are foisting it on the whole team AND they are getting the benefit of a team to soften the effect on them. Some disadvantages, and hunted is but one of them, are not really 'personal'. Moreover, if you take a full 50 points of Hunted, the GM is unlikely to have them all show up together, just because it is awkward and artificial to run, and in any event, the 'timescale' for hunteds is per adventure, not per session. Given that you are going to be facing some sort of opposition in a game in any event, is it really a disadvantage to tell the GM ahead of time that you want it to be VIPER?

 

An 8- VIPER HUNTED (As powerful, harshly punish) nets you 10 points.

 

Viper features in adventures irregularly.

 

Compare that to a vulnerability to a common attack where you take 1 1/2 x damage, say a vulnerability to fire. That could easily come up every other session, and, should you be hit by such an attack, the added damage will almost certainly take you out. That also nets you 10 points.

 

I'm just not seeing the balance at all.

 

Isn't having a teammate KO'd every other session also a problem for the rest of the team? They have to protect the downed teammate and deal with the opposition while being a man down.

 

Maybe it's VIPER who made your vulnerability public, or provided the FlameGuns to the opposition.

 

VIPER hunts one character, not the team. Why would they not focus on the guy they hunt, taking him out first, with an effect almost identical to the Vulnerability?

 

Oh, and if the effect shows up every other session, I'd call that Very Common, so 15 points,

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

This comes down to game style. If characters take no history, they largely live in a vacuum. No Hunteds, DNPC's, Watched, etc. No connection with the game world. Of course, you could write all these things into your background and not take points for them, but then there is little incentive to take such unrewarded 'History'.

 

 

 

It is artificial. It is set not for verisimilitude but for play balance. No one wants to play the sidekick - players want to be the hero, so a measure of artificial "characters start more or less equal" game balance is imposed.

 

History sounds like the old edition D&D theory that Magic Users were balanced because they were virtually useless at 1st level and grew to near-omnipotence at high levels - balance over campaign life.

 

Characters in short campaigns will take lots of history because the Growth issue won't be long enough to disadvantage them, where characters in extended campaigns will lose too much compared to those who get their full xp, so campaign style will dictate whether History is a good idea.

 

While I won't claim the current system is perfect, I see insufficient improvements to justify your proposed modifications.

 

Characters in short campaigns, especially ones that hae already been written are in a lottery anyway: their disadvanategs might not come up at all, unless the GM is willing to extend the campaign or do a substantial re-write.

 

At least with 'History' the player creating the character knows they will be better off taking plenty of history as they will never have to pay for it, and it then becomes a matter of choice rather than just luck.

 

If I thought that disadvantages acheived play balance then I would not have a problem, but I genuinely think they do not, because there is no balance between the effect of different disadvantages. Some are clearly worth more than you get for them, many, especially if you have a GM who has prepared the game in advance and is not just making it up as they go along are worth a lot less.

 

OK, that is true of powers. Someone with a suite of mental powers is going to fare badly in a campaign where the enemy are largely automata and, as always, the answer is to turn to the GM to sort it out.

 

I think, however, that taking a new approach actively encourages better and more interesting play. For example getting the benefit of Psych Lims up front makes you resent them when they limit you in play, or can easily do, whereas getting a reward when that happens makes you feel good.

 

Potentially the best way to deal with all disadvantages is to award a bonus when they hinder you in play and have no 'up front' bonus at all. I feel that some disadvanatges suit that approach better than others though.

[tesuji]

Re: A new system of disadvantages

 

Not snide at all - it is a good point. What I'm trying to accomplish is some system reason why a player who is concerned about their character being effective would perhaps choose not to add as many points as they can.

 

I think the key to that lies not so much in the disadvantages but in the emphasis. The system puts a great deal of emphasis on total pts spent meaning more powerful. As silly as it sounds to me having a pc at 351 means "no admittance" in many games while the difference between him and 250 guy is a familiarity. I dont find total cp spent to be that meaningful myself .

 

Which is why i suggest two things need to be re-emphasized to get the change you want.

 

1. take only disads you WANT to be a problem cuz i will use them that way.

 

2. take as many as you want, but first see #1 again.

 

then approve/dissapprove not on total cp but on playability and whatever actual combat metrics you want.

 

you need as gm/rulebook to de-emphasize total cp and instead turn it to "you have what you WANT, you take what you need and no more"

as chargen.

 

then be sure to enforce the crap out of disads.

 

Now that is not what i would do, mind you, cuz you still are keeping disads in the loop of point balance, but hey...

 

Realsitically if one team member takes HUNTED: VIPER, then they are foisting it on the whole team AND they are getting the benefit of a team to soften the effect on them. Some disadvantages, and hunted is but one of them, are not really 'personal'.

 

 

chuckle... i recall many many a session where the other players stared holes in a player because "your disads? your disads? we should get points for it because it is !@$#$$ing us up!!!"

 

But really this worry applies to lims as much as it does disads.

 

The sorcerer might have saved 30 cp for more stuff when he took activation roll on his spells but when his firebolt fail to break an enemy entangle or his side effect kicks in and he vanishes... the others pay for it too.

 

that game was so much fun.

 

The best part was, in that game, i made his side effects so much fun and interesting for the conjurer, the player did not mind them and even looked forward to them while THE REST OF THE PARTY cringed every time he reached for dice cause they knew he was about to bollocks up their carefully concieved plan.

 

ahhh... such warm fuzzies...

 

:-)

 

but i digress... my point is that almost every actual disad or limitation when it comes into play is as much or more of a shared pain than an individual one. My weakness to kryptonite means i cannot help you in some cases and you are down one man, usually when it matters the most.