More Complications, Please

[Killer Shrike]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I've been lowering Disads and giving more Base Points for years. I find the lowered Complications bar very nice. Now characters take the ones that really matter and there's no pressure to pad the number out.

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

You can spend only 275 points if 300 is the cap, if you wish to. The sky does not fall in.

 

Which is not what I asked, but I think you know that.

 

As character points benefit you, the cap is a maximum (a hard maximum in most games). As complications act to your detriment, the cap is a minimum (a soft minimum in most games, as you can fall below it). One could think of that typical Supers game as having a total of 400 character points, and 75 required points of complications. If you wish, you may spend some of your 400 character points to buy off some of your complications, so a character could have 400 CP, spend 75 eliminating the Complications requirement and have 325 left to spend on other abilities.

 

In other words – it only cuts one way.

 

Whereas I said that for me, it should cut both ways or it just doesn't cut it at all.

 

But perhaps I should give some more thought to what you're saying here.

 

The question isn't really "should these complications have a point value" but "should my character get more points for positive attributes because I took more complications" or, alernatively, "if I am going to have more points in complications, shouldn't everyone else be required to do the same"?

 

Um, when did the question become “should everyone else be required to do the same?” I don't see where that is coming from. If anything, I'm talking about the idea that perhaps all characters in a campaign should NOT have exactly the same number of points in Complications.

 

Also,

 

"should these complications have a point value" = "should my character get more points for positive attributes because I took more complications"

 

It makes no sense to say the question is not one but is the other, they are both ways of asking the same thing.

 

Your original comment was that YOU want more complications FOR YOUR CHARACTER to fully flesh him out. The answer is that you can have more complications. My characters often do. But it does not mean your character gets more positive attributes, nor that the other players are penalized for falure to have complications to the same level your character does.

 

Okay, where does the idea that other characters are penalized come from?

 

As a GM, I only have so much time to focus on each character. If your character has twice as many complications, I suspect they will arise less frequently and/or be enforced less harshly.

 

That makes a certain amount of sense, is probably part of the reasoning behind reducing the number of points in Disadvantages, and is surely the biggest reason why Disadvantages have a “cap” to begin with.

 

Sometimes, extra complications are a way of stealing extra spotlight time - when MY DNPC, or MY HUNTED, or any other issue unique to MY CHARACTER provides more focus on my character and, by extension, less on the other characters. At that point, these drawbacks to the character become a benefit to the player seeking more attention for his character/himself at the expense of the other players around the table.

 

Not to mention the burden on the one running the game. I think in a previous conversation some years ago (might have been online) I coined the name “Problem Child” as a stand in for any character whose Disadvantages (or Complications) drew excessive time and attention, so I can't fault you for making a point I've made myself before.

 

The thing is, this is NOT an argument for taking those extra three Hunteds at <=14 but getting zero points for them. This is an argument for not taking those three Hunteds at <=14 AT ALL, even in fact if they're your only Complications.

 

There is a shift in thinking about how Complications work in 6E; in two directions.

 

Possibly I'm still adjusting to that. So far, to be honest, it simply looks like a more confusing way of doing much the same thing.

 

I think we've overvalued Disads in the past because a lot of people can't think of 150 points of things they Want in the story.

 

I think you may be right about the overvaluing, and perhaps even about one of the causes of it.

 

I was hinting at something like that when I asked if it was true, as it would seem “in theory” it should be true, that a character with, say, 100 pts plus 100 pts of Complications is equal to one with the same 100 Base Points but only 50 in Complications.

 

Lowering the points first allows those that want a tighter focus to do so (because there is nothing that says you can't take more if they're really important to the character's story); Second allows us to cherry pick out those things we really want to focus on in the Characters story. And Thirdly, let's us reevaluate just how much a Complication is worth, how often do we want it to impact the story, how much impact do we want the GM to place on this particular thing?

 

That, and there's nothing that says Complications - once taken - are set in stone and become static. You could just as easily come up with a laundry list worth 3x as many points as you need, and then have them move naturally in and out of the Character; perhaps Hunted's get resolved (you finally put that mob boss behind bars); a Rivalry turns from an issue into a friendship that becomes more a friendly game than it causes problems; your unrequited love is requited (outro Psych Complication: Secrectly In Love With X - intro DNPC: Spouse); You bring your bestial nature under control (remove Enraged)...

 

there's just too much story potential in allowing Complications to naturally evolve out to consider "overflow" to be worthless. Call it Banking Future Story Lines.

 

Now, this is making a certain amount of sense to me. I've always believed in “fluid” characters. Have you played this way? What can you tell me about how it works out in play?

 

Although I find it hard to believe that things like Vulnerability and Susceptibility are easily switched in and out. Or Enraged, or Accidental Change or lots of Physical Complications. But things like DNPC, Hunted, and many Psych and Social Complications might be more rotatable...

 

 

I completely disagree. Characters are not an exercise in accounting. They are not matching columns.

 

That's not all they are, but it is part of what they are. Otherwise, why use a point based system at all? If the guy running the game tells me to bring a 400 pt character I'm not going to assume that 425 is okay. Heck, I'll try not to even be at 403. (On the other hand, I may come in at 386 and ask to spend the rest later as I figure out where they should go.)

 

Complications generally range from 5-30 Points. A 20 Point Complication should come up roughly twice as often as a 10 Point Complication.

 

Twice as often? Or with twice the impact?

 

I think a Character that took 0 Points but still had the same Point Total as a Character who took 70 points in Complications will be worth the same Total Points, but be more boring to play.

 

It's not a power level thing. Point Totals have always been a poor measure of comparative power level. They're story telling tools. They aren't "bad stuff" vs "good stuff" they are Characters w/ Complications.

 

I don't see -20 Points when I see a Complication - I see a 20 Point Complication with a Frequency and am Intensity to take into account. These are not things to use against a character, they are things to create a more interesting story with.

 

I think Complications have always had a dual purpose, and that this plays into why they can seem “overvalued.”

 

To some extent, yes, they ARE “bad stuff” vs “good stuff” : 3d6 Unluck is pretty much an equal and opposite Liability to the Asset of 3d6 Luck.

 

But something like Psych Complication: Heroic Code is not JUST a Liability that limits the character's freedom of action with a laundry list of “must dos” and “must not dos.” It is also very very much something that defines and motivates the character, and I think there has always been a desire to “reward” the player for that kind of choice by making it worth points.

 

Has this been a “bad thing?” Is it something that should change? I'm honestly not certain, but now it's come up I'm interested in thinking and talking about it.

 

Now I've sat on this for probably over 24 hrs, and taken my time composing a reply, and by the time I copy this off the document and paste it to the forum, there will probably be 10 more posts to respond to...

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Complicate the palindromedary below

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Which is not what I asked' date=' but I think you know that.[/quote']

 

You stated that the rule seems only to cut one way. A comparison of the rules for purchased benefits and those for complications therefore seemed appropriate.

 

In other words – it only cuts one way.

Whereas I said that for me, it should cut both ways or it just doesn't cut it at all.

 

In both cases, you are limited to a maximum. For benefits, it is a limit to the total points you may spend on such benefits. For complications, it is a limit to the total additional points you may obtain (Disadvantage model) or a limitation to the total points of complications you must take to avoid a reduction in points to spend on benefits (Complications model). Either way, there is a cap.

 

If it doesn't cut both ways now, it did not cut both ways in 5e. A Standard Super character with 175 points in disadvantages didn't get to be a 375 point character - he got 350 points.

 

Um' date=' when did the question become “should everyone else be required to do the same?” I don't see where that is coming from. If anything, I'm talking about the idea that perhaps all characters in a campaign should NOT have exactly the same number of points in Complications.[/quote']

 

So take as many as you want. I'm not sure what you perceive is preventing you from having more complications than required to fulfill the campaign minimum.

 

"should these complications have a point value" = "should my character get more points for positive attributes because I took more complications"

 

It makes no sense to say the question is not one but is the other, they are both ways of asking the same thing.

 

They are not the same thing. Complications can have a point value without the character getting more points in another area. I can require that characters have at least 75 points in Complications - requiring they have a point value so we can determine whether you have taken at least 75 points of complications - and not allow you to reduce the complications you must take by reducing the character points you spend on positive attributes, nor allow you to have extra points if you take extra complications.

 

Okay' date=' where does the idea that other characters are penalized come from?[/quote']

 

If you get extra character points to spend, and other characters don't, that can be viewed as a penalty. From your comments, I'm not clear whether you expect the character with 100 points of complications to have more CP to spend than one with 50 points.

 

That's not all they are' date=' but it is part of what they are. Otherwise, why use a point based system at all? If the guy running the game tells me to bring a 400 pt character I'm not going to assume that 425 is okay. Heck, I'll try not to even be at 403. (On the other hand, I may come in at 386 and ask to spend the rest later as I figure out where they should go.)[/quote']

 

So why can't you have 90 points of complications and ask to buy some off as you figure out which ones should go?

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

From your comments, I'm not clear whether you expect the character with 100 points of complications to have more CP to spend than one with 50 points.

 

I thought it was clear that this is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

I expect a character with 100 pts in Powers to have fewer points to spend on other things than a character with 50 pts in Powers.

 

I don't see the one expectation as - on the face of it - more unreasonable than the other.

 

If it doesn't cut both ways now, it did not cut both ways in 5e. A Standard Super character with 175 points in disadvantages didn't get to be a 375 point character - he got 350 points.

 

And I never liked it before either. It's just that I only remember going over the cap once under 5th Edition.

 

They are not the same thing. Complications can have a point value without the character getting more points in another area. I can require that characters have at least 75 points in Complications - requiring they have a point value so we can determine whether you have taken at least 75 points of complications - and not allow you to reduce the complications you must take by reducing the character points you spend on positive attributes, nor allow you to have extra points if you take extra complications.

 

If you get extra character points to spend, and other characters don't, that can be viewed as a penalty.

 

Which means that if I take less than the full allowance, I'm penalizing myself.

 

Which goes to what Ghost Angel and I have been talking about. It seems that Assets (finally figured out a word that covers Characteristics, Skills, Powers, etc) and Liabilities (whether we're talking old edition Disads or new edition Complications) are not measured on the same scale of value. Otherwise, we wouldn't be speaking of "penalties."

 

Among other things, this implies that if I have 15 Experience points to spend, buying a 15 pt Power is a better deal than buying off a 15 pt Complication, if the latter is not "really" worth 15 pts on the same scale.

 

So why can't you have 90 points of complications and ask to buy some off as you figure out which ones should go?

 

Maybe because I don't think any of them should go? If I'm worried about the cap I think it follows that there isn't any "fluff" that I see as such on the list.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if we should try posting specifcic characters.

[pinecone]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Well I certainly find the ceiling too low...but, based on reading lots of posts here, many either had a hard time filling or just plain ignored the "full count"

 

Personally I file this change as "For the worse, but not broken..."

[teh bunneh]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Lucius, let me see if I follow you. I'm a little unclear on what you are trying to get at...

 

The GM says, "You get 200 base points, plus up to 100 points in Complications. You're playing 300-point characters."

 

If you come back to him with your character who has, say, 200 points in Complications, are you suggesting that the GM should let you play him as a 400-point character (that is to say, you get 100 more points to buy skills, powers, etc than the other players)?

 

If that's not what you're suggesting, could you please clarify your position for me? Thanks.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Well I certainly find the ceiling too low...but, based on reading lots of posts here, many either had a hard time filling or just plain ignored the "full count"

 

Personally I file this change as "For the worse, but not broken..."

 

How can it even be "For the worse"? It's a recommended number that you don't have to use. Just like everyone who thought they were too high in 5E didn't have to use them. If you're GM, adjust them for your game. If your not GM but your group liked the amount of Disads/Complications used in previous editions, talk to the group about keeping it that way. Unless you have a GM who uses each and every suggested value as written with no consideration for how they, or the players, want the game to feel/play, I don't see why this is an issue...

[Querysphinx]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Meh. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, I ran a Champions game that was 150 pts plus 100 in disadvantages. It was very much a super soap opera, albeit one with with city destroying slugfests. When creating characters my borthe was looking over his disadvantage list, trying to come up with 25 more points to max out his character sheet. He finally Wrote down "25 pts: Stuff the GM is going to do to me anyway."

 

That sort of codified my opinion of point balance, so that ever since, I look at "Is the character interesting, does the Character have story potential, and is the character going to steal everyone else's thunder?" before I ever look at point values and stats. I'm perfectly willing, in many cases to let a player choose "complications" during play. "Oh that sexy villainess we just met, she is so going to be my character's romantic interest."

 

When the rules get in the way of the game, they become the problem, not the solution.

 

In other words, it's a game not a bureaucracy.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

No.

 

A character can be sufficiently defined and "plot invested" on fewer disadvantage points. The higher you push the disadvantage requirements the more likely it is you will find players taking advantages not because they help define the character or benefit the game, but because they have to. Also, the more likely you'll find the disadvantages overlap conceptually or just don't gel with the whole. Further, the notion that an arbitrary number/ratio somehow makes things "fair" is false. Insofar as all the PCs are built with the same number/ratio fairness doesn't enter into it. The only right number is the one that serves the character conception and story best for your group. The number in the book is guideline based on a system designer's gut check for what fits best, not a straight jacket you have to live with. Gut checks are based on subjective personal experience. In my experience, for some groups 150 is just too high and results in superfluous disads so I agree with it. But, you can take it or leave it. Do what works for you.

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Lucius, let me see if I follow you. I'm a little unclear on what you are trying to get at...

 

The GM says, "You get 200 base points, plus up to 100 points in Complications. You're playing 300-point characters."

 

If you come back to him with your character who has, say, 200 points in Complications, are you suggesting that the GM should let you play him as a 400-point character (that is to say, you get 100 more points to buy skills, powers, etc than the other players)?

 

If that's not what you're suggesting, could you please clarify your position for me? Thanks.

 

That's what I was suggesting, with some caveats.

 

First, I wasn't thinking on that scale. I find it hard to imagine a 200 point list of Complications that could not be trimmed down some.

 

Second, now that I've opened the can of worms, I am still exploring ways to look at or think about the issue, and also interested in exploring some related issues.

 

I'm not sure I'm ready yet to try to articulate everything I'm thinking. But I do think it's true that Complications (in general) are in some sense "over-valued" that is, their point values are inflated compared to the point values of Assets.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if you can buy Simplifications for your character.

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Lucius, I'm going to have to disagree with that idea. If the GM says 200+100, you get a 300 point character, no matter how many extra Complications/Disads you think are appropriate for the character.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

For my own superhero world I'm increasing the Complications total to 100 points, and I'm still hitting the ceiling.While this is true, any Complication is going to have an effect on game play (especially Hunted, Physical Complication, and Vulnerability) and so should have a point value. Otherwise we're a step back toward playing a points-free, rules-free "make-believe" game. (Not that there's anything at all wrong with that; it's just not what HERO is for.)

 

Points aren't the only concrete mechanical currency you can use. You could feasibly use Heroic Action Points as the underlying currency.

[tesuji]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Lucius' date=' I'm going to have to disagree with that idea. If the GM says 200+100, you get a 300 point character, no matter how many extra Complications/Disads you think are appropriate for the character.[/quote']

 

would you also agree with...

the GM says 200+100, you get a 300 point character, no matter how many FEWER Complications/Disads you think are appropriate for the character

 

if not, and if complications in play have an actual impact on the character, why only cut one way?

 

if i already have the cap in comps and i add "vulnerable to fire attack common 2xstun and 2xbody for 0 pts, i am not going to be anywhere as near effective as the same character with only the cap in comps. thats 5e stats btw.

 

so how is anything served game wise by "preferring" me to take that comp at 0 pts?

[tesuji]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

first a couple of things.

 

IMX seeing same players in variousbsystems, some that used disads/comp as free points up front, some that use them as in play bonuses such as passions in ars magica and as spawners of hero points in fate, mnm, and some that simply dont make them a part of the system mechanics at all. (yes dnd for instance or traveller)

 

again watching same players...

 

i got the best overall effect of comps etc from the latter - non-system. the players still wrote in things like "hunting murderer of father" and "hates orcs" etc all the significant story elements they wanted. there was just "for fun" aspect to them, no mechanics or points needed. my players do NOT need an accounting system to spur them to make their characters interesting and story worthy. also, with these things entirely off the books, they were free to evolve and resolve those issues in play with no need to find other compensating ones or do accounting.

 

i never had a player under such systems apply a disad/comp they actually did not want to occur in play. the other two methods i cannot say that about.

 

the second best was the middle - in play bonuses" since it let them evolve but there was still some cases where the players worked in things "for the points" but these were rare.

 

finally the worst of the lot with extensive play was the upfront points. i saw lots of cases where stff added was just for the points and where the player looked for "easy but high pointed" disads.

it encouraged gaming the system.

 

thats our experience.

 

a question tonothers.

 

do you feel your players NEED to have a points reward, or in 6e terms an avoidance of reducing their points, in order to add story worthy in genre elements to their character?

 

if not why not have comps be free all 0 pts, and simply let them define them for the ones they like?

 

lucios - would making all comps/disads 0 pt resolve your dilemma?

I'm perfectly willing, in many cases to let a player choose "complications" during play. "Oh that sexy villainess we just met, she is so going to be my character's romantic interest."

 

When the rules get in the way of the game, they become the problem, not the solution.

 

here i get into a quandry.

 

would you also allow thepc who took 10 body damage to temporarily get those points to spend until he heals?

 

if there is any mechnical aspect or chargen aspect involved i am reluctant to let the definition be any variation of - what i am about to do now"

 

if a villain angers the character in play can he swap off a disad for "angry at so and so" until he calms down?

 

whether these are free off the books, in play bonuses, or up front points, i like them to represent not short term spur of the moment things but long term serious elements of the character story.

 

evolve/resolve - sure. but "hey shes cute gimme points" = nah, not for me.

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

would you also agree with...

the GM says 200+100, you get a 300 point character, no matter how many FEWER Complications/Disads you think are appropriate for the character

 

if not, and if complications in play have an actual impact on the character, why only cut one way?

 

if i already have the cap in comps and i add "vulnerable to fire attack common 2xstun and 2xbody for 0 pts, i am not going to be anywhere as near effective as the same character with only the cap in comps. thats 5e stats btw.

 

so how is anything served game wise by "preferring" me to take that comp at 0 pts?

 

Actually, 6E already handles this and I think it's an excellent idea. In 6E I say 300 points with 100 points of matching Complications. And if you only come up with 75 points of Complications, then your character is only going to be 275. I like that idea.

 

As for going over with 0 point Comps, I do think it's a case of "do you need this"? I like the lowered totals as I think it makes things easier on the player and GM. Now you concentrate only on the most important elements.

[The Main Man]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

No.

 

A character can be sufficiently defined and "plot invested" on fewer disadvantage points. The higher you push the disadvantage requirements the more likely it is you will find players taking advantages not because they help define the character or benefit the game, but because they have to. Also, the more likely you'll find the disadvantages overlap conceptually or just don't gel with the whole. Further, the notion that an arbitrary number/ratio somehow makes things "fair" is false. Insofar as all the PCs are built with the same number/ratio fairness doesn't enter into it. The only right number is the one that serves the character conception and story best for your group. The number in the book is guideline based on a system designer's gut check for what fits best, not a straight jacket you have to live with. Gut checks are based on subjective personal experience. In my experience, for some groups 150 is just too high and results in superfluous disads so I agree with it. But, you can take it or leave it. Do what works for you.

 

That's how I feel about it too.

 

To me, Disadvantages/Complications in and of themselves do not define a character anymore than their Characteristics, Skills, Perks, Talents, Powers, or Equipment. It's how all of those interact with the game world to form a story that defines the character.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

50 pts of Complications barely counts as a hint of a character. Not even a character sketch. I can't think of a single lead character in any halfway decent piece of fiction that has such minimal personality hooks. I can think of lots of characters that jot down "Not Rules, Guidelines, PTSD and Violet Eyes" and think that counts as fleshed out. How can you even get such a cypher involved? Or anticipate their actions? How do you plan your game?

If your players weren't seriously considering getting less than the potential amount of Disadvantages before, IMO, you weren't getting your points worth out of them. My initial group back in the BBB day were 270, 295 and 320.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I think a lot of folks in-thread are making the topic more complex than necessary by thinking in pre-6E terms. I think it's helpful to think of it this way:

 

The GM defines the starting points for PCs in the campaign. He or she also defines a minimum amount of Complications points that must be defined.

 

That's it.

 

And I think it's clearer to think of these as two different things. Even though the book allows for taking fewer-than-required Complications and sacrificing points -- essentially making it work as it did pre-6E -- I would not personally allow this as a GM. If you wanted to build your character on less than the normal amount of points, you could. But it wouldn't change how many points worth of Complications you needed to define. Building the character to 'x' points or less is a requirement. Defining 'x' points or more worth of Complications is a requirement.

 

And if you think of it in those terms, I don't think the new guidelines are too low. Because they're defining the minimum. It's not saying "This is how many points worth of Complications you should take, and if you're over, cut them back to this." It's saying "This is the bare minimum number of Complications points you must take, but you're welcome to define as many as you want."

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I like Derek's thinking on this. Personally, I'm inclined to agree to get rid of the 'loss of points' for taking less Complications. You take the minimum required, plus whatever more you want.

 

I've formed an entire character out of three words; I completely disagree that you can't form a complete character without a large number of Complications. 50 points or 50,000 points is irrelevant to making those Complications meaningful.

[tesuji]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

50 pts of Complications barely counts as a hint of a character. Not even a character sketch. I can't think of a single lead character in any halfway decent piece of fiction that has such minimal personality hooks. I can think of lots of characters that jot down "Not Rules, Guidelines, PTSD and Violet Eyes" and think that counts as fleshed out. How can you even get such a cypher involved? Or anticipate their actions? How do you plan your game?

If your players weren't seriously considering getting less than the potential amount of Disadvantages before, IMO, you weren't getting your points worth out of them. My initial group back in the BBB day were 270, 295 and 320.

 

this is one place we tend to differ.

 

i see there being two basic types of character, at extremes, story driven ones, and many levels of the inbetween.

 

one type is the high comp guy whose story started well before now and he has a lot of background issues to deal with. a lot of his future story is resolving or working thru stuff already defined in his past. this type of character may be more typical of more modern comic types, for instance, where highly flawed personalities in addition to dealing with the villains, have to muddle through sometimes soap operatic personal issues. i tend to refer to this as the backward fcing character because the gm tends to spawn much f the storylines from that character's background.

 

 

another type is the opposite. his background rarelt plays a role. he is dealing with the NEW problems. otherwise he is fairly normal. a lot of "normal guy thrown into abnormal situations" can run this way. but basically, the story lines are based on all new stuff, not linked to his backstory.

 

EXAMPLE of the former -" i was a regular teenage high school irls until this evil band kidnapped my best friend for satanic sacrifice but they botched it so she came back as a half demon and tried to kill people but when i found out what was up she came after me and i stopped her but not before getting demon blood in me so now i am hunting down the evil band and using my partial demon powers to hunt and kill other dark monsters"

 

losta comps, lotsa baggage, lotsa room for the gm to spawn stories derived from her past.

 

Example of the latter - that same character just before that horrific series of events happened. her story is basically just getting interesting.

 

both sets of events make for good story and provide meaty roleplaying fodder but have radically different levels of comps - unless "like a normal person" is a comp" equivalent to "demon infected, hunting evil band, etc.

 

in a super vein, games more akin to superfriends or some older less complicated comics would be more along this. the stories are about the hero and whats happening now and soon, not their past catching up to them.

 

remember, comps are not "what i am" but "things about me that play a role and have an impact on the story" their frequency is "how often it matters in play". two guys can both have a total commitment fear of snakes, but one is not a comp because it isn't something the players wants to be a part of the story and another have it be worth points because he wants it to be a regular problem. two ndifferent characters can both be stunned by green meteor rocks but again, one doesn't count as a comp because green meteor rocks shouldnt appear in the campaign while for another it is because it will occur and matter.

 

my players tend to split. some go more with a lot of backstory and lot of unresolved issues. others tend to design "normal guy with powers" and rely on me to involve them not by dint of their scripted backstory but by providing them interesting stuff, introducing them to their new "drives". one hands me events and aspects to script in, to work in - the other leaves me a blank canvas to work with. neither is better for my game than the other. neither is worse. neither produces better rpg events. they both work and produce fun and interesting stories and games.

 

so neither need to recieve a mechanical bonus, imo, img, etc.

 

i mean, frankly, i dont see a story or rpg difference between one character who "fell in love two weeks before the campaign starts" and gets a 20 pt comp for "loves someone who will be threatened in the campaign" and another character who "falls in love session two with an npc i introduce and who tries to save her when threatened" that warrants the former getting 20 cp more stun and body to play with, because he reached 100 comps while the other guy only reached 80 and so was docked 20 cp for not having matching disads. if both players enjoy their plotlines and both plotlines are interesting, why the mechanical bonuses?

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

EXAMPLE of the former -" i was a regular teenage high school irls until this evil band kidnapped my best friend for satanic sacrifice but they botched it so she came back as a half demon and tried to kill people but when i found out what was up she came after me and i stopped her but not before getting demon blood in me so now i am hunting down the evil band and using my partial demon powers to hunt and kill other dark monsters"

 

losta comps, lotsa baggage, lotsa room for the gm to spawn stories derived from her past.

 

Example of the latter - that same character just before that horrific series of events happened. her story is basically just getting interesting.

 

both sets of events make for good story and provide meaty roleplaying fodder but have radically different levels of comps - unless "like a normal person" is a comp" equivalent to "demon infected, hunting evil band, etc.

 

Sure, except why would this character stop their best friend rather than run for the hills from a murdering half-demon, does "stop" mean for this character incarcerate, rehabilitate or two to the head and what drives this regular high school girl to use her soon-to-be-acquired demon powers to fight for justice rather than get rich? Sounds like more than 50 pts of Complications just answering those questions, then you have demon-based drawbacks in addition. I couldn't write and run a fun game for a character that didn't answer these questions. I wouldn't know or even have a hint at what way they would turn when confronted with a plot twist.

 

Complications aren't penalties or handcuffs or some kind of quid pro quo to wring more cps out of the GM; they are how you tell the GM this is the kind of angst and drama I want the character to experience in the game.

[The Main Man]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I like Derek's thinking on this. Personally, I'm inclined to agree to get rid of the 'loss of points' for taking less Complications. You take the minimum required, plus whatever more you want.

 

I've formed an entire character out of three words; I completely disagree that you can't form a complete character without a large number of Complications. 50 points or 50,000 points is irrelevant to making those Complications meaningful.

 

Exactly. Complications are not worth the paper that they are printed on if they do not ever become story relevant.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Actually, 6E already handles this and I think it's an excellent idea. In 6E I say 300 points with 100 points of matching Complications. And if you only come up with 75 points of Complications, then your character is only going to be 275. I like that idea.

 

As for going over with 0 point Comps, I do think it's a case of "do you need this"? I like the lowered totals as I think it makes things easier on the player and GM. Now you concentrate only on the most important elements.

 

I like Derek's thinking on this. Personally, I'm inclined to agree to get rid of the 'loss of points' for taking less Complications. You take the minimum required, plus whatever more you want.

 

I've formed an entire character out of three words; I completely disagree that you can't form a complete character without a large number of Complications. 50 points or 50,000 points is irrelevant to making those Complications meaningful.

 

I'm coming to the thinking that the phrasing should, perhaps, be "This many points for assets and this many points minimum in Complications". Then throw in a Power called "Reduced Complications" (just like we already have Characteristics and Skills in there). For each 1 CP spent, you can reduce your required complications by 1 point. Slap a "Caution" sign on it as an indicator that complications do have a purpose.

 

As to whether the complications provide story hooks, I'm not convinced. If none of the characters took any hunteds, would there be no villains to battle? Clearly not. So maybe everyone should take "Mystery Hunted - Rogue's Gallery of Bad Guys the GM will Throw at us 18-". There won't be a scenario without opposition, right? If no one has a DNPC, will that mean there are no innocent bystanders, no people to help and no people to interact with? Probably not. Maybe we should all take "Rotating DNPC - whoever the GM chooses to toss in 10-" if we want this to be an issue for about half our scenarios.

 

How many games really have those Hunted's and DNPC's show up as often as their frequency indicators would imply? Even an 8- Hunter should be involved in about 25% of all scenarios - forever unless you spend points to buy them off!

 

Do characters that have no psychological complications become emotionless ciphers? I doubt it. "Emotionless Cipher" sounds a lot like a complication unto itself. Do psychological complications really enhance role playing? They can, but they can also be used as an excuse not to role play. "These are my Psych's, so unless I succeed in an Ego roll, I will follow them blindly, and not consider that my character's psychological complications/outlook on life might possibly be affected by ongoing campaign events". My character got points for "Distrustful of Elves", so even after years of game time, and the Elven PC proving his worth time and again, right up to the point of saving my life a dozen times, at massive risk to his own, I'll still look at him and say "Shifty Elf - can't trust him as far as you can throw him".

 

Can't a character have personality traits without having them thrown in his face in a negative fashion? Is "Happy and Cheerful" less a personality than "Moody Loner"?

 

To the other school of thought that these get built into character background anyway, yes and no. I can define my character's family, coworkers and friends without making them DNPC's - they don't cause a lot of trouble. I can define goals and motivations, such as hunters, hunteds or unrequited love, without making them central to the game (and without having to pay points should these elements be resolved). How many players will decide their character is morbidly obese, so he can't run as fast or fight as long as the other characters, if they don't get some compensatory benefit elsewhere? How many will define their character as taking damage from something innocuous to other characters, or taking extra harm from some effect without some in-game reward to compensate? 6e moved some more elements out of disadvantages/complications and into sellbacks (like missing senses). Maybe some existing complications should be "sellbacks" instead. We buy defenses and immunities - maybe vulnerabilities and susceptibilities should be sellbacks. This would better meet Lucius' goal - more complications that have mechanical effects, at least, would mean more character points.

[teh bunneh]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'm thinking that next time I run a Hero game, I might tell the players, "Just take the 3-5 complications that you really want to have an affect on your character, in-story. Don't worry about points. If you want to anguish about whether or not to kill that villain with the high body count who just keeps coming back, then give yourself a CvK. If you want the Yellow Hobgoblin to make your life miserable, then give yourself a Hunted. Other things, like personality traits or people in your family that you don't really want to play a major role in the game, just mention in your character background and call it good."

[Querysphinx]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'm thinking that next time I run a Hero game' date=' I might tell the players, "Just take the 3-5 complications that you really want to have an affect on your character, in-story. Don't worry about points. If you want to anguish about whether or not to kill that villain with the high body count who just keeps coming back, then give yourself a CvK. If you want the Yellow Hobgoblin to make your life miserable, then give yourself a Hunted. Other things, like personality traits or people in your family that you don't really want to play a major role in the game, just mention in your character background and call it good."[/quote']

 

This is a good plan... and I have soooo many character ideas boiling in my head.