More Complications, Please

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

My group has always felt if you can't get 100 points in physiologicals you don't really know your character.

 

Then I guess I know nothing about any of the characters I've ever created.

[Chimera 12]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Personally, I'm fine with the lowered point threshold on Complications. To me, it means I can better concentrate on the 'core' issues of my character -- those that are central to his or her concept first and foremost, above and beyond the routine call of duty -- and then stop instead of having to come up with increasingly far-fetched problems just to get my point budget up to where it should have been in the first place.

 

To those who would argue that if I can't come up with enough Complications, I must therefore not know my character well enough and/or that he or she must necessarily be a two-dimensional cardboard cutout, I'll say only this: I truly hope that the day when the only things that are allowed to define my characters are the numbers and cryptic pieces of game jargon on a sheet of paper -- or in a file on some computer, I suppose -- never comes.

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

My group has always felt if you can't get 100 points in physiologicals you don't really know your character.

 

There's a difference between knowing your character and choosing elements you want to hi-light in the game.

 

I may know my character is afraid of needles, deeply so, and play them to the hilt with it, but if I never write it down all I'm saying is "I'm not really expecting to deal with this in game to any serious extent. Even though I could write down a 20 point Complication about it. It's just not a story aspect I feel needs to be brought out with any kind of regularity. But yes, if you introduce needles I'll have my character act appropriately. Because that's the character."

 

But whatever. Pardon me for not knowing any of my characters though GMs will say otherwise.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Touchy a little here guys? Different styles for different folks . Change it to meet your style . Ghost I'd think you'd get that first of anybody. I'm really stunned this offended people. I meant no offense just explaining how our group works. I foolishly thought it would be amusing

 

My point is different styles make different use of complications and things should be tailored to the campaign and group. Lesser is just further from my ideal. I prefer to have it mostly written in the complications and defining the characters actions. Susano's excellent notes at th bottom of his characters include stuff I would often include as complications because to me they have real play impact to us but obviously every group is different and works differently.

 

Personally I feel i shouldn't have to explain this on the HERO boards but maybe I'm behind the times..

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Nah - I think I'm just a little high strung, I worked through my weekend and haven't had downtime in over a week now. I missed the humor.

 

Because yeah - in all honesty if 300 Points in Complications/Disadvantages is how your group rolls - then rock that puppy. Of course there's the side that says "even if you don't get points for them, if you feel they're important, then add them on." Which is very similar (if not the same as) extensive notes along with the character.

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The problem is (for me) that threads like this start to sound like those horrid ads that White Wolf used to run. "Well, real role players run their characters like this." With the implication that I'm some sort of mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger for not doing it that way.

[The Main Man]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The problem is (for me) that threads like this start to sound like those horrid ads that White Wolf used to run. "Well' date=' [b']real[/b] role players run their characters like this." With the implication that I'm some sort of mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger for not doing it that way.

 

While I never read said White Wolf ads that is a pretty accurate summary of my feelings on parts of this discussion.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

You probably mean me. Fair enough but' date=' similar to how [b']I feel [/b]art is only achieved by effort within self-imposed restraints and heroism isn't defined by how much power you can bring to bear but how you achieve despite your own limitations, role-playing is a melding of improvisational art and the heroic journey for me. Different people game differently. If everyone at your table is having a good time, then you're doing it right.

 

This is where I explicitly said what is implicit in everyone's posts. Everything is IMO. There's only ever been one Champions Guru and he moved on to other things.

 

I treat everything on a character sheet as a sign from the player that they want the game to go there, all ingredients for the dish. If a character has Detective Work (is it still called that or am I dating myself?) 11- they are telling me that their character wants to occasionally deduce their way out of a jam. If they have Detective Work 17- they are telling me that they want to often deduce their way out of jam. If they have Psych Lim: Uses Alexandrian Solution to Solve Puzzles (Common, Strong) they are telling me an entirely different thing.

 

I write my scenes to the characters. The guy who buys Flight with all the bennies and DCV linked to it is going to get a chance to dogfight someone that I will set up to get schooled. Someone who buys Missile Deflection Usable at Range is going to get a chance to save the day by blocking the shot. Someone investing a chunk into Danger Sense is going to get to pull everyone's bacon out of the fire at some point. Similarly if someone puts Driven to Protect Innocents (Common, Total) on their sheet they are telling me that 1) they want innocents to be included 2) they want the innocents to be threatened and 3) they want to save them in an acknowledged heroic fashion. They would probably get a scene where an accident victim stops panicking, relaxes into the character's arms and says "Why would I be afraid? I'm with you."

 

There has been a lot of language used in this thread to describe Complications that lead me to think that some people have had their nose rubbed in them, GMs using them to screw the player over or embarrass them cruelly. That's not a problem with the concept of Complications. There's also been some that have said they have played with those that use Complications as a crutch, that when they initially describe their character it is "brown hair, grey eyes, fair complexion, has a gambling habit, hates bards" and they repeat or assert themselves at opportune and inopportune times. "Are you a bard, because if you are I hate you!" That's not a problem with Complications.

 

I happen to think that if a few experiences with incompetent Complications made you adverse to using them when making your characters (very common, strong) then you are missing out on a powerful tool in this game. YMMV.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The problem is (for me) that threads like this start to sound like those horrid ads that White Wolf used to run. "Well' date=' [b']real[/b] role players run their characters like this." With the implication that I'm some sort of mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger for not doing it that way.

 

 

Not what I intended. I just wanted to point out more points doesn't automatically mean munchkin and do it in a in a humorous way.

[Chimera 12]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

As an afterthought: It occurs to me that the idea that players are expected to load their characters down with Complications may owe something not so much to the rules of previous editions themselves or personal play experience as to the presentation of most if not all 'canon' characters in pre-6E supplements. I'm certainly the first person to admit that I missed out on Fifth Edition and so can't comment on that with any authority, but I can open practically any 4E book I still own to the character section more or less at random and within a minute or two at most find something that makes me nod and think "Aha, here is where the designer was desperately scrabbling for some more points". And if that's the case with 'official' characters that the players are going to take as examples and inspiration on how to build their own, it naturally sets a precedent.

 

(Alternatively, maybe this just says something about me. But in either case I think it's saying something. )

[Guest steamteck]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

We have lots but I disavow the "obviously scrabbling for points stuff" we build them until we're done our style then stop.

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

As an afterthought: It occurs to me that the idea that players are expected to load their characters down with Complications may owe something not so much to the rules of previous editions themselves or personal play experience as to the presentation of most if not all 'canon' characters in pre-6E supplements. I'm certainly the first person to admit that I missed out on Fifth Edition and so can't comment on that with any authority, but I can open practically any 4E book I still own to the character section more or less at random and within a minute or two at most find something that makes me nod and think "Aha, here is where the designer was desperately scrabbling for some more points". And if that's the case with 'official' characters that the players are going to take as examples and inspiration on how to build their own, it naturally sets a precedent.

 

(Alternatively, maybe this just says something about me. But in either case I think it's saying something. )

 

5th helped change that by increasing the base and decreasing the number of Disads needed to balance the character. However, Steve does seem to be a minimalist and I was surprised to see Dr. Destroyer in CKC have a total of around 3 Disads (Hunted, one Psych, and Reputation). I figured he'd have a few more, at least.

[torchwolf]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

As an afterthought: It occurs to me that the idea that players are expected to load their characters down with Complications may owe something not so much to the rules of previous editions themselves or personal play experience as to the presentation of most if not all 'canon' characters in pre-6E supplements. I'm certainly the first person to admit that I missed out on Fifth Edition and so can't comment on that with any authority, but I can open practically any 4E book I still own to the character section more or less at random and within a minute or two at most find something that makes me nod and think "Aha, here is where the designer was desperately scrabbling for some more points". And if that's the case with 'official' characters that the players are going to take as examples and inspiration on how to build their own, it naturally sets a precedent.

 

(Alternatively, maybe this just says something about me. But in either case I think it's saying something. )

I almost missed out on 5th Edition entirely too, just got me the 5ER pdf right after the book went out of print after viewing these boards for a time and beginning to wonder about how much the rules seemed to have been expanded from 4th, so I know where you're coming from.

As Susano and others mentioned, the 5th Edition reduced the number of required Disadvantages, and many of the "because of the biochemical imbalance caused by gaining mutant/radiation accident powers, character X is now vulnerable to Intense Magnetic Fields/Adjustment Powers and etc." ceased appearing in that form. But of course, that's also partly because the 5th edition writeups have a generally much improved level of quality compared to some 4th edition books (left unnamed here as not to start anything again).

 

Personally I don't think the recommended number of Disadvantage/Complication points matters that much though; everyone changes details in every game to suit their needs anyway, and many years ago (during 4th Ed) I started allowing Disadvantage points "in reserve"; when a created character works reasonably, any further points might as well be assigned or reallocated depending on what happens during the campaign. I think that approach still is valid even with just 30-75 points of Complications but probably easier to work with in that respect.

 

Describing a personality in terms of Psychological Limitations/Complications is probably something I've moved away from gradually, even if I borrowed the "quirks" 1-point ideas (running under 4th Ed) because it encouraged thinking about idiosyncrasies more. Those things fit better under description really, but it all depends on the GM; I've known people to just look at the Disadvantage list and not bother reading "personality" descriptions at all, in which case the player really needs to be able to define a character in Psych Lim terms, but that's not the Hero system's fault.

 

Of note though: the 5th Edition books are really good even if you don't intend to use 5th Edition otherwise, so don't dismiss them because you're getting 6th Edition instead; read a review or two of those and consider getting the ones that won't be updated anytime soon. In particular, the Ultimate Skill book.

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

So do we actually have a consensus that Complication Points are not actually equal to Character Points on a one to one basis?

 

Put another way, of two similar characters:

 

one built with 300 Base Points and NO Complications;

 

one built with 300 Base Points plus 100 Points of Complications, for a total of 400 Points;

 

The second character is superior/more powerful, and the unComplicated character is not only not equal, but actually worse off?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary can't believe it took me this long to get back around to a conversation that's been in the back of my mind all this time.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

So do we actually have a consensus that Complication Points are not actually equal to Character Points on a one to one basis?

 

Put another way, of two similar characters:

 

one built with 300 Base Points and NO Complications;

 

one built with 300 Base Points plus 100 Points of Complications, for a total of 400 Points;

 

The second character is superior/more powerful, and the unComplicated character is not only not equal, but actually worse off?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary can't believe it took me this long to get back around to a conversation that's been in the back of my mind all this time.

 

Only if the GM is neglecting the complications of Complications, and ignoring the idea that any GM who allows a character with no Complications deserves what he gets from what he approved. But then again I find the idea of only 100 pts of Complications ludicrous. YMMV, IMO and whatever else will keep people from thinking that I'm judging how you play is "wrong."

[sinanju]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I wasn't a big fan of some of the changes in Sixth Edition, but the reduced load of Complications I fully approved of. I was one of those players who often had to struggle find disads I didn't want--but could live with--just to meet my quota. If I were able to pile on Psychs (I was a player in Steamteck's game for many years, and was willing and able to produce lots of character-defining psych limitations), it wouldn't be a problem. But most games put a cap on the number of points in any one category. So I wound up taking a slew of disads I didn't want, that didn't fit the character, and seldom got used (given the 150+ disads EVERYONE brought to the table) just to avoid getting dinged on character points.

 

Under the new approach, with lower totals, I can choose only those disads I actually care about. As I described it once in another thread, if I'm playing Spider-Boy, I can choose a Secret Identity complication IF I want that to come up frequently in-game; I'll have to deal with missed dates, tardiness at my job, my elderly aunt's dislike of Spider-Boy, close calls with nosey neighbors/relatives, the whole shmear. If I don't, I can say in my character background that I have a secret identity, but not take that as a complication--and it just never comes up in the game. I manage to handle the issue without drama. When I had to scramble for points, that wasn't usually an option. I HAD to take the disad just to fill my quota.

 

It did NOT add to my role-playing experience. Lower complication point totals means I can now tell the GM (by what I take, or don't take) "this is what I want to deal with in the game" as opposed to "Okay, fine, if I have to have two or three Hunteds and a Physical Lim of some kind just to avoid getting dinged...sure, whatever."

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

In my experience, 100 points of Disads/Complications isn't usually that hard if the character actually has much of a background. It helps that when I talk origins with a player, I make it clear that the character's origin is 'that which makes him fight supervillainy', not 'that which gave him super powers'. To use the obvious example, Spider-Man got powers from the radioactive spider, but his origin is the death of Uncle Ben and the power=responsibility epiphany.

 

The last 50 points (I say, used to 100+150 or 200+150 builds) tend to be like pulling teeth, and often seem to require forced or extraneous elements to the character's background. One of the 6e things I do like is reducing the number of Disad points so you only get the important, 'core' elements.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

What I've found is that not all my characters need to the same number of complications to feel 'complete' -- some of them are good with 50pts, others have backgrounds/origin stories that have 100pts (or more) of complications 'built in' so it's a struggle to pare them down to a lower point total. It's hard to pin down a single guideline that works for all cases. One size does not fit all!

 

That being said, I've been fairly happy with complication totals on the few superhero level characters I've done in 6e, but I do a lot more heroic level character designs, and 50pts of complications is a bit light for most of them. I've found a good benchmark for my own use is to make up about one-third of the character's total points in matching complications: 60pts for 175pt characters; 75pts for 225pt characters; and 90pts for 275pt characters. Sometimes 90pts is a bit much, but for a heroic level campaign, 275pt characters are pretty rare, anyway.

 

One particular issue I've run into complication totals is the use of templates in character creation -- many templates have a few 'built in' complications, sometimes as many as 20 or 25pts. This becomes a problem when multiple templates are used; they tend to 'fill up' a character's allotment of complication points with template-based complications, which results in rather bland characters who all have the same complications. I need to add a few points to include unique complications which personalize the characters.

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Huh. Well, so far not quite a consensus.

 

Casualplayer seems to feel that, if anything, the unComplicated character is getting the better deal:

 

Only if the GM is neglecting the complications of Complications' date=' and ignoring the idea that any GM who allows a character with no Complications deserves what he gets from what he approved. [/quote']

 

Out of curiosity, what is he getting when he approves a character with no Complications?

 

Sinanju wrote a very revealing and informative post. I was especially struck by some of these words...

 

..... I was one of those players who often had to struggle find disads I didn't want--but could live with--just to meet my quota.....

 

It did NOT add to my role-playing experience. Lower complication point totals means I can now tell the GM (by what I take, or don't take) "this is what I want to deal with in the game" as opposed to "Okay, fine, if I have to have two or three Hunteds and a Physical Lim of some kind just to avoid getting dinged...sure, whatever."

 

His use of the word "dinged" to refer to the situation of the unComplicated or less Complicated character, and especially of the word "quota" to refer to what was actually not a minimum but a maximum number of Complication or Disadvantage points suggests that he would consider the Complicated character in my example as getting clearly the better deal.

 

I really should have reviewed the old posts before restarting this conversation, but my memory is that more people would have sided with Sinanju.

 

"If your limit is 100 pts of Disads and you only have 85 so far, better scramble and find one more 15 pts Disad! No matter what you take, those 15 Character points you get will be so valuable in comparison, you'd be a fool not to take them!"

 

I'm not sure I agree, but I've been thinking about it. Obviously, the subject's been bothering me for a long time.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thought it was time I bugged someone else about it again. I was starting to think everything I said on the subject went in one ear and out the other three anyway.

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I think Sinanju has the crux of my feelings on the subject.

 

I CAN come up with a lot of complications when pulling them from a characters backgrounds - really easily. I've never struggled to come up with 150, even 200 points worth. But the problem was the ones I felt were important just got buried, it created to much noise over the signal.

 

Now, with less points I can pull out the ones I really want to focus on in game, the ones I want to drive the characters story. Do I want the character to struggle balancing their Normal and Superheroic identities? The 'Secret ID' becomes an important element. Do I want my tough as nails mercenary to be constantly disadvantaged in a fist fight, instead of just looking cool? then my eyepatch (Physical Limitation: No peripheral vision on his left side) becomes a Complication instead of a throw-away line on the character description.

 

It is also nicer for the GM to only need to juggle 600 points worth of Complications (assuming 6 players in a Superhero game) than it is to work in 900 points worth.

 

In my current Fantasy campaign the GM said "choose 3-4 complications you want your characters story to focus around" and he didn't even care about the points. It's worked wonderfully, the absolute core of the character's various plots are in the spotlight. We know that several possible Complications are always in there, but they're going to roleplayed out anyway, and not really needed to be noted as no focus is needed on them, they're not really there for 'points'.

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I recently created a character - Quicksiler Ali - for a non-Hero game that doesn't have any kind of Disadvantage mechanic.

 

I wrote backstory for the character - two pages worth - that includes elements that would have, or could have, been Complications in Hero.

 

Searching for his older brother Achmed - Psych Complication, or possibly even DNPC

 

Wants revenge on/ afraid of, the magician who apparently randomly teleported his brother and himself to widely separated locations on the continent - Psych

 

Obviously youthful appearance, not always respected or taken seriously - Social Complication, or Distinctive Features

 

Young, implying several possible (small c) complications; impulsive, hormone driven, inexperienced and naive - Psych? Ignorant and inexperienced could even by a Physical Complication (can't EGO roll your way into being worldly and experienced)

 

Overconfidence (maybe, maybe not, losing the brother who was his constant companion has really rattled him...maybe instead UNDERconfidence, "can I face these challenges without Achmed backing me up?")

 

Possible Hunted (mage who wants his magical toy back.) That would be up to the guy running the game if he wants it; an interesting contrast to Hero, where I the player either take the Hunted or not.

 

Thief. Not a kleptomaniac, but a street running rogue, pickpocket, and burglar by habit. - Could possibly be Hunted (watched) or Reputation, assuming he will eventually become known for it everywhere he goes, but maybe not, as he's starting out in a new area. Could be Psych Comp.

 

So whatever else I can say about Complications, I don't NEED a mechanical system such as Hero provides to come up with a personality, motivations, and story hooks. I think others have said much the same.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I don't need a Complication to have a palindromedary. Although I would say a palindromedary IS a complication. They usually don't simplify my life...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I find the reduced totals in 6e force consideration of elements really critical to the character. I see a lot less Hunted's, for example. In 5e, it was pretty much accepted every Super would have two or three Hunteds to fill points, and they would show up once in a while. In 6e, I see Hunteds only when they are truly germane to the character, and many characters have none.

 

The reference to "signal to noise" hits it dead on, GA.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Huh. Well, so far not quite a consensus.

 

Casualplayer seems to feel that, if anything, the unComplicated character is getting the better deal:

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, what is he getting when he approves a character with no Complications?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Nope. I feel that a character is done when it is done, not when it has hit campaign maximums. Campaign maximums, including build totals, are like speed limits; instead of being viewed as a ceiling they get viewed as a floor, and lots of people like to see just how much more they can get away with before they get busted. They are how you end up with every single character in your game doing 15d6 damage, having a 5 SPD and a 10 OCV, because that's the caps the GM set.

 

A character with no Complications is a random actor, a loose cannon. You don't know if they will save the hostage or blow a hole through the hostage to get to the terrorist. You don't know whether they will fly right on by or stop the crime. They are amoral and apathetic. Chaotic Neutral assassins. Pure impulse, no direction.

 

Complications are what makes Black Panther, Catman, Batman, Dick Grayson Batman, Moon Knight, Batwoman and Huntress different characters. Their distinctiveness doesn't come from the type of things dangling from their utility belt, and their power sets are virtually identical. If I ask you which of these characters you like best, your answer will probably hinge on a Complication that that preferred character has alone or to a greater degree than the others.

 

I find it difficult to think of any compelling fictional characters that don't have an easy 100 pts or more in Complications. Take a peek at Surbrook's Stuff. House, Duncan Macleod and The Cat Sisters have more than 100 in Complications, and I don't see any padding there because if there was it could have just been rolled into the experience bonus. If the source material we are trying to emulate has that depth, why are we opting for shallow?

[dmjalund]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

theres nothing stopping you from getting those extra complications - you just don't get any points for them. - and if you really are trying to build to character rather than power-build, that won't matter.

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

From a points perspective - the more Complications per character, the more Complications come to the table for the GM to work with - and since there is a finite time of In Game aspects one has to work them in, the more Complications you have the less they're worth as a Game Tool per point.

 

If five players come to the table with 50 Points of Complications each, the GM has a small group Per Character and Overall to work with, he can really bring those out into the light, a Player will get More Play For The Points on each one. If those same five players each come with 150 Points of Complications the GM suddenly has a lot more points to work with, he won't be able to hilight each one for more than a short time otherwise he'll start neglecting both other Player's and the overall story of the Campaign. Their may be more "Complication Points" but suddenly each one is not getting nearly as much play overall, the points aren't really worth anything beyond numbers on the sheet.