6e discussion: Complications

[Sean Waters]

There is more structure to Complications (formerly Disadvantages) in that how often they come up is more standardised. There's been some tidying up, but things are basically the same.

 

I've always wondered about Disad...Complications. There does not seem to be a great deal of effort to match the point cost to actual utility (negative utility?)...for example you get 25 points for becoming enraged in combat on 11- and recovering on 11-; a hinderance for sure, but that's a lot of points, yet only 15 points for taking 1 1/2x stun from physical attacks. Sheesh. You'll barely ever be conscious. You get nothing at all for having to charge your powers every day from a magical lantern, Green Lantern stylee. Nothing.

 

It would have been nice to see things jigged about so that you always got at least 5 points for a Complication.

 

It would have been nice to see things smoothed over a bit, so that there was more parity between the 'point awards'.

 

To end on a positive though, I like the idea of having fewer complications so that the ones you have matter more.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

You get nothing at all for having to charge your powers every day from a magical lantern' date=' Green Lantern stylee. Nothing.[/quote']

Er, wouldn't you get a Limitation on all your Powers and thus have saved points at that end? Getting more for a Complication would be Double Dipping. On the other hand, you could build all your Powers normally and take a Physical Complication, couldn't you? If not, why not?

[incrdbil]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

There is more structure to Complications (formerly Disadvantages) in that how often they come up is more standardised. There's been some tidying up, but things are basically the same.

 

I've always wondered about Disad...Complications. There does not seem to be a great deal of effort to match the point cost to actual utility (negative utility?)...for example you get 25 points for becoming enraged in combat on 11- and recovering on 11-; a hinderance for sure, but that's a lot of points, yet only 15 points for taking 1 1/2x stun from physical attacks. Sheesh. You'll barely ever be conscious. You get nothing at all for having to charge your powers every day from a magical lantern, Green Lantern stylee. Nothing.

 

Well, I like to think of it this way. When interacting with people, taking 50% more stun from physical attacks really won't influence things. But, given an established campaign, a character who becomes enraged in combat on a 11- will perhaps get a certain treatment--call it an earned, zero point reputation--of being a human time bomb. Going enraged in combat leads you to doing very destructive actions that may have out of combat repercussions that are more serious than having a glass jaw.

 

"Why yes, you stopped that street punk who took a shot at you. However, ripping up the powerpole connected to the transformer to city hall and putting him in the emergency room is a bit of an extreme reaction to a jewelry store theft."

 

And a villain who just knows you lose it in combat half the tiem may find more ways to destroy you than just punching you. After all, the punch just has to hit--the combat--well, that happens when the villain initiates it.

[Vulcan]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

A good villian will find a way to trigger your Enraged at the most... inappropriate times. Like, for example, right when Jimmy Dugan is there with a news crew to film the whole thing. Then all the villian has to do is let the media and the court of public opinion do the dirty work of destroying the hero.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

There is more structure to Complications (formerly Disadvantages) in that how often they come up is more standardised. There's been some tidying up, but things are basically the same.

 

I've always wondered about Disad...Complications. There does not seem to be a great deal of effort to match the point cost to actual utility (negative utility?)...for example you get 25 points for becoming enraged in combat on 11- and recovering on 11-; a hinderance for sure, but that's a lot of points, yet only 15 points for taking 1 1/2x stun from physical attacks. Sheesh. You'll barely ever be conscious. You get nothing at all for having to charge your powers every day from a magical lantern, Green Lantern stylee. Nothing.

 

It would have been nice to see things jigged about so that you always got at least 5 points for a Complication.

 

It would have been nice to see things smoothed over a bit, so that there was more parity between the 'point awards'.

 

To end on a positive though, I like the idea of having fewer complications so that the ones you have matter more.

 

Well, you've managed to touch one on thing: Complications are campaign dependent in frequency.

 

I played in one Campaign where "combat" would rank as Common at best, but would be more appropriate at the Uncommon Level - not Very Common - turning Go 11-;Recover 11- Combat Enraged into a 15 or 20 point Complication.

 

I would be the Need To Recharge My Powers Daily as a Physical Limitation: Infrequently, Slightly Impairing for 10 Points - or at worst Barely Impairing for 5 Points - not your listed 0.

Not as the Dependence that I think you're basing it on; since not recharging my Powers is probably an all or nothing.

 

If it's not on/off I'd build it thusly:

Dependence: Powers Gain 11- Activation Roll (Common; 1 Day) for 5 Points; not using Very Common because I don't want it to come up all the time, but often enough to give me worry (say, every few sessions, or if a session lasts several Game Time Days or a Game Time Week have to sweat it out once during that period.

 

Complications and how they're built are very much dependent on the Game, what the Player wants out of them, and how the GM feels they should be dealt with - and an understanding between the Player and GM on both those points.

 

There is no "set" way to build many of these things.

 

Even the Commonly Accepted "Secret ID" Complication should be shifted around based on how often the Player and GM feel it should come into play and how important it is when that happens.

 

So, I think you're making too many assumptions about a general way games are put together. There is not Hard Rule about Complications.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

Er' date=' wouldn't you get a Limitation on all your Powers and thus have saved points at that end? Getting more for a Complication would be Double Dipping. On the other hand, you could build all your Powers normally and take a Physical Complication, couldn't you? If not, why not?[/quote']

 

I'm not just making this stuff up because it is silly: that is a specific '0 point' example of a complication from 6e1.

 

If you can get points for it as a physical complication - and why not - it seems that it certainly has the potential to be pretty limiting - that demonstrates even more clearly that 'Dependence' is not costed right. Maybe that the appraoch to complications itself is not right.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

Well, I like to think of it this way. When interacting with people, taking 50% more stun from physical attacks really won't influence things. But, given an established campaign, a character who becomes enraged in combat on a 11- will perhaps get a certain treatment--call it an earned, zero point reputation--of being a human time bomb. Going enraged in combat leads you to doing very destructive actions that may have out of combat repercussions that are more serious than having a glass jaw.

 

"Why yes, you stopped that street punk who took a shot at you. However, ripping up the powerpole connected to the transformer to city hall and putting him in the emergency room is a bit of an extreme reaction to a jewelry store theft."

 

And a villain who just knows you lose it in combat half the tiem may find more ways to destroy you than just punching you. After all, the punch just has to hit--the combat--well, that happens when the villain initiates it.

 

 

Hmm...probably a good example of a character who becomes enraged in combat is Wolverine, and that's all flavour: he doesn't slaughter innocents, cause massive property damage or anything like that.

 

What Hero Enraged requires is that you attack the thing that enraged you, mindless of the safety of yourself or others.

 

That is a substantial problem, but not so bad if you've built the character right to start off with (i.e. it has an offensive bent and can take a punch) - at least not so bad for the PC. For the other PCs it can be a nightmare. I'm not so sure that making life difficult for others should be worth the kind of points this complication cranks out.

[rjcurrie]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

Hmm...probably a good example of a character who becomes enraged in combat is Wolverine, and that's all flavour: he doesn't slaughter innocents, cause massive property damage or anything like that.

 

What Hero Enraged requires is that you attack the thing that enraged you, mindless of the safety of yourself or others.

 

That is a substantial problem, but not so bad if you've built the character right to start off with (i.e. it has an offensive bent and can take a punch) - at least not so bad for the PC. For the other PCs it can be a nightmare. I'm not so sure that making life difficult for others should be worth the kind of points this complication cranks out.

 

Well, when they start to question whether you should be a member of their team, that's a problem for you.

[casualplayer]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

Used to have a player called Rage, a martial artist who never lost a fight unless he went Berserk. See, when he went Berserk I made him dump all his levels into OCV and that left him with a dismal DCV which made him an easy target. He bought down that Disad just as soon as he caught wise and now adventures as Ronin.

[Karmakaze]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

And then, of course, we have Disney Zombies.

[tesuji]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

i always thought that an issue with comps was TOO MUCH DEFINITION.

 

the defined differences between enraged and hunted and vuln etc are what drives the "discrepancies" in costing vs effectiveness and also as a side effect they tend to promote "fishing" for the ones worth more but hurting less.

 

What I would rather have seen is a generic costing scheme -

 

1. Choose how often the comp causes problems. Express as x session in ten or somesuch.

 

2. choose how limiting it is? use broad categories like mostly fine, seriously weakened, and practically crippled.

 

3. let those two determine value and payback.

 

4. provide several examples of "my comp" at work.

 

This gets a lot better communication as to how often things will go wrong and better consensus as to what things it will bring.

 

In this case enraged for instance may trigger a plot line where some particularly snarly pictures are published of our hero and a wave of media attention about "rampaging heroes" has this guy as the poster child. Now, in a strictly by the book sense, this is like having enraged temporarily bring on some bad reputation.

[teh bunneh]

Re: 6e discussion: Complications

 

1. Choose how often the comp causes problems. Express as x session in ten or somesuch.

 

6e, page 416.