More Complications, Please

[Christopher]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

This gives me an idea.

 

A Variable Complication Pool. Not necessarily by that name.

 

Rather than a specific “Hunted” the player chooses something like “Assorted Enemies.” Picks a general frequency and intensity, perhaps getting points for that. And then lists options, several people or groups that might be pursuing, spying on, or working against the character for whatever reasons.

See Floating Complications, 6E1 417. I think that is exaclty what you seek.

 

About Complications beyond the limit:

With the one unfinished character I habe, I wrote down a couple of complication options. Only CvK and things from Templates are Fixed (in that chase Heavy). For the rest, the GM can decide wich ones he wan't to use, how severe they are and how frequently.

But frankly I don't want to have them all. I'm fine with only 75 Points to beginn with, It's just so the GM can choose from a large number and can have the ones he can work with the best in the intensity and frequency he likes the best.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Well if there's no points, I suspect the GM would pretty much choose the frequency.

 

Yay! I'm a necromancer!

 

In my experience, a good many GMs do this anyways! When you have to juggle stage time for multiple characters and keep the main plot going, all of those 14- complications will not be showing up 90.7% of the time. Nor are all of those 11- complications going to show up ~63% of the time. Especially if you have more than 2-3 players. Instead, complications get worked in, or tied into the main plot, as often is convenient/appropriate for the game. Most players build their characters as "solo protagonists" despite the fact that most RPG experiences are "ensemble casts." This is one of my issues with frequencies being given die-roll values, or even frequencies. It implies an obligation to use the complications as often as a die roll would yield a positive result. I think it would be better if complications were given "drama ratings." Something like: metaplot, major subplot, minor subplot. Or major theme, minor theme, and occassional episode.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'm not sure this has been so explicitly and articulately stated yet.

 

And I'm highlighting it because I think it reflects one possible reason why it is commonly (if not unanimously) percieved that Complication points have an "inflated exchange rate" i.e. that the 10 Character points you get for a 10 pt Complication is worth more as an Asset than the Complication is actually worth as a Liability.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

the palindromedary wonders if the post will take the THIRD time we try it

 

One thing I've done is allowed characters to invoke complications to their benefit for HAP costs. It should generlaly go the other direction, but some, like reputation, can swing both ways.

[Orion]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

But you can always just take more if you want to and the rules even say so. The only difference is that you don't get anything for them anymore. If you want to' date=' you can still get 100, or even 150 Complications for your 400 pt champion.[/quote']

 

I've always considered this to be complete nonsense, and that's putting it very politely. If I develop a hunted or vulnerability in play, it needs to go on the sheet. Same with a power or skill. If new powers and skills I want have to be paid for, the GM shouldn't be allowed to dump complications on me that he wants without giving me points. What if I don't want that new hunted? Why should I be saddled with it? Sadly, it's game mechanics, not storytelling, than causes this. I've met players for which these rules make sense and are needed. They are interested in playing the game rules, not telling an interactive story. Gamists, not narrativists.

 

On the rare occasion I GM, points are only used to determine how multipowers work, and the rare drain/transfer/etc. Other than that, they mean nothing. Show up with a character of the pre-agreed upon power level for the campaign. Take whatever complications you think appropriate. EXP means nothing, and may never be given out, because changes to the character, for better or worse, are the result in in-play actions. Want the character to slowly increase in power through time - better note that is happening in the backstory. Want a major reworking of the character - ask me to schedule a radiation accident. Tired of the hunted - let me know and we'll do a story. With this approach, much of the problem of points goes away. Instead of playing a character sheet, the players concentrate on playing the character.

 

But if you say this change of rules means you have lesser complications on your sheet than earlier' date=' might this mean that you only had so many ideas in that you wrote down in 5E because you had to? So (subconciously) it was never about having an interesting character, just "adding more complications to get the points" disguised as "having an interesting character".[/quote']

 

Early in Champions experience, I can remember taking multiple hunted, vulnerabilities, and enraged solely because I had to have the points. There was absolutely no reason in the character concept for them, it was strictly a game mechanic. I've even put down Hunted: 11- on the sheet and later asked the GM to fill in a villain of his choice because it made no difference whatsoever to me. As mentioned earlier in the thread, these were characters designed from the start as going forward. The backstory, such as it existed, had no interest to me as a player, and not much to the GM, truth be told. They were basically normal people, and did not have any crippling psych issues. They hadn't been around long enough to develop their own rogues gallery. DNCP were rarely ever used, and not of interest to the players. We just didn't have enough complications, but our interpretation of the rules was that you had to have them, so we bought them. Much later, when the GM and us players were comfortable with each other, we stopped worrying about it, and no longer tried to balance points out.

[Christopher]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

In my experience' date=' a good many GMs do this anyways! When you have to juggle stage time for multiple characters and keep the main plot going, all of those 14- complications will not be showing up 90.7% of the time. Nor are all of those 11- complications going to show up ~63% of the time. Especially if you have more than 2-3 players. Instead, complications get worked in, or tied into the main plot, as often is convenient/appropriate for the game. Most players build their characters as "solo protagonists" despite the fact that most RPG experiences are "ensemble casts." This is one of my issues with frequencies being given die-roll values, or even frequencies. It implies an obligation to use the complications as often as a die roll would yield a positive result. I think it would be better if complications were given "drama ratings." Something like: metaplot, major subplot, minor subplot. Or major theme, minor theme, and occassional episode.[/quote']

Frequency isn't always the Viper Squad knocking onto your door. It can be way more subtle. Perhaps you don't even notice it's the work of your hunted (the 6E rules have some intersting examples), they aren't there to cause you trouble, etc...

And for groups: How about taking some common Hunteds? That way you can easily satisfy half a dozen hunteds in one stroke.

 

I've always considered this to be complete nonsense' date=' and that's putting it very politely. If I develop a hunted or vulnerability in play, it needs to go on the sheet. Same with a power or skill. If new powers and skills I want have to be paid for, the GM shouldn't be allowed to dump complications on me that he wants without giving me points. What if I don't want that new hunted? Why should I be saddled with it? Sadly, it's game mechanics, not storytelling, than causes this. I've met players for which these rules make sense and are needed. They are interested in playing the game rules, not telling an interactive story. Gamists, not narrativists.[/quote']

Don't mix up things here. What I said was only for character creation. The Hunteds you earn in play don't affect your points. They are "are risk for doing good things" (and that's how the rules state it).

 

Early in Champions experience' date=' I can remember taking multiple hunted, vulnerabilities, and enraged solely because I had to have the points. There was absolutely no reason in the character concept for them, it was strictly a game mechanic.[...']They hadn't been around long enough to develop their own rogues gallery. DNCP were rarely ever used, and not of interest to the players.

I had similar issues with my first character. But after some thought I got a fair amount of complications and most of them came from the rad-accident.

 

She used to be an Athlete on the way to olympics, had a boyfriend and other things to live for. Then she got Dystinctive Style, superhuman strenght, increased her weight by 6-8 times and got barred from the olympics.

Just think about it: a hundred times your normal strenght. You could easily break the bones of your loved one when you have a bad dream. Or during phases of "intense fun and joy" (and it takes out the fun, if you can't let go). And even at less intense emotional states, you can easily break some bones by hugging someone.

And that are just the mayor things, there was a lot more to be considered that could easily sum up to light depressions.

 

If you don't want to be affected by rules that much, then it's your style of playing. I think I still stick with the rules personally and see where that leads.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'll chime in for a moment but I don't want to reignite old debates. For decades, My group has ignored any limits and taken disadvantages until the character is done and then stopped and its worked perfectly for us. I get we're a unique group that actually designs to concept etc. but I think disadvantages/complications are a unique resource for character developement that is untapped by 50 points. Even from the begining I never felt a need to get the maximum number,

Obviously this concept fails with tons of people but it would be nice to see an offical nod towards those who want to have a little more flexibility. That being said I really have no horse in this race and the difference in the way complications and disadvantages isn't suble or small to me,.

[Christopher]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Obviously this concept fails with tons of people but it would be nice to see an offical nod towards those who want to have a little more flexibility. That being said I really have no horse in this race and the difference in the way complications and disadvantages isn't suble or small to me' date='.[/quote']

Official Nod from 6E:

The values are only Guidelines. You can take as much or less as you and your players want to, the rules specifically state that and repeat it at least once.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Frequency isn't always the Viper Squad knocking onto your door. It can be way more subtle. Perhaps you don't even notice it's the work of your hunted (the 6E rules have some intersting examples)' date=' they aren't there to cause [i']you[/i] trouble, etc...

 

This, again, presumes an implicit obligation to work them all into every scenario in some way based on frequency, which is an obligation I don't consider realistic for group play. That one can do so does not make it desireable.

[Christopher]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

This' date=' again, presumes an implicit obligation to work them all into every scenario in some way based on frequency, which is an obligation I don't consider realistic for group play. That one can do so does not make it desireable.[/quote']

That's why I made a list of complications (including some GM-choice) and let my GM choose frequency and severity. Perhaps he can better work with few severe/Infrequently, than with a lot of of weak/Very Common ones. And for some (Vulnerabilities) both factors are based a lot on the campaign.

 

And some of them, like psych complications are mostly work on my part.

Also, you can swap new, aquired complications for those who "don't apply anymore" (read: the GM never used them).

[Guest steamteck]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Official Nod from 6E:

The values are only Guidelines. You can take as much or less as you and your players want to, the rules specifically state that and repeat it at least once.

 

True enough and yay! I've never seen the thought of take them till you're done then stop mentioned recently though. Doesn't really matter . As you said its a toolkit. use it as you will. makes some aspects of this discussion kinda strange though but whatever works for them. If they want to take extra non point gainig complications and nobody gets crippled and it works for that group, cool! For me diadvantages and abilites always seemed to balance fine but that's part of the GM, group dynamic.

[Orion]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Don't mix up things here. What I said was only for character creation. The Hunteds you earn in play don't affect your points. They are "are risk for doing good things" (and that's how the rules state it).

 

Now, it's how the rules operate, but I firmly believe that complications earned in play should affect your points. I just don't see how my choosing a hunted and the GM choosing a hunted for me should be treated differently. Both complicate life for the character, and I think both should therefore give points. Some would say I am getting points for it - exp - but I disagree. A session is finished, and all get 3 exp for rescuing the hostages. For the other characters, that's it. But for me, I also get a hunted, because I defeated the villain in personal combat. If I am getting exp for the hunted, then I am getting nothing for the session of roleplaying. Storywise, the hunted makes complete sense, and as a player I would expect to be given complications of various types as the campaign progresses.

 

If you don't want to be affected by rules that much' date=' then it's your style of playing. I think I still stick with the rules personally and see where that leads.[/quote']

 

I bring up the gamist / simulationist / narrativist grouping a lot, as it explains a lot of what I've seen in my years of role playing. Harn, which I dearly love, is heavily simulationist. The Hero system, in my view, is heavily gamist, as is every single player I've met in person. I'm very much in the narrativist camp. Hero provides the best rules framework for gaming, but if there's a choice between story and rules, I will always go with story.

[Orion]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'll chime in for a moment but I don't want to reignite old debates. For decades' date=' My group has ignored any limits and taken disadvantages until the character is done and then stopped and its worked perfectly for us. I get we're a unique group that actually designs to concept etc. but I think disadvantages/complications are a unique resource for character developement that is untapped by 50 points. Even from the begining I never felt a need to get the maximum number.[/quote']

 

Like you, I've been doing this for years. I haven't bothered with limits and balancing costs in 20 years. Create a character, complete with background. Figure out how to best model that in the system. If the system can't handle it, then use house rules and handwavium to implement it. Do whatever it takes to get the concept into play. Sometimes it takes loads of complications; other times there are almost none.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I bring up the gamist / simulationist / narrativist grouping a lot' date=' as it explains a lot of what I've seen in my years of role playing. Harn, which I dearly love, is heavily simulationist. The Hero system, in my view, is heavily gamist, as is every single player I've met in person. I'm very much in the narrativist camp. Hero provides the best rules framework for gaming, but if there's a choice between story and rules, I will always go with story.[/quote']

 

It was born in a very gamist time for our beloved hobby. I agree hero has a gamist verve, but my experience with the type of player it attracts has been different from yours. I've met a lot of Hero gamers who are "gamists," but certainly not all of them. My group could be broken down as 2 gamists, 2 simulationists, and 2 narrativists. One of the gamists was eventually converted into a narratavist with "pro from dover" tendencies. I use hero because it allows for awesome character definition at design-time. But, honestly, their are other games I've enjoyed more at run-time. Heresy, I know, but its true. Its also why I heavily leverage the "toolkit" concept when running Hero.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

True enough and yay! I've never seen the thought of take them till you're done then stop mentioned recently though. Doesn't really matter . As you said its a toolkit. use it as you will. makes some aspects of this discussion kinda strange though but whatever works for them. If they want to take extra non point gainig complications and nobody gets crippled and it works for that group' date=' cool! For me diadvantages and abilites always seemed to balance fine but that's part of the GM, group dynamic.[/quote']

 

 

I don't sweat the points on builds anymore, either. I just check to make sure the PCs are playing in the same league and won't introduce problems over-time and go for it.

[teh bunneh]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

No' date=' it's not how the rules operate, but I firmly believe that complications earned in play should affect your points. I just don't see how my choosing a hunted and the GM choosing a hunted for me should be treated differently. Both complicate life for the character, and I think both should therefore give points. Some would say I am getting points for it - exp - but I disagree. A session is finished, and all get 3 exp for rescuing the hostages. For the other characters, that's it. But for me, I also get a hunted, because I defeated the villain in personal combat. If I am getting exp for the hunted, then I am getting nothing for the session of roleplaying. Storywise, the hunted makes complete sense, and as a player I would expect to be given complications of various types as the campaign progresses. [/quote']

 

That's one of the reasons I don't sweat points for Complications anymore. But even if I did, I still wouldn't give extra points for picking up a new Complication. A new Complication (in my game) means you get more spotlight time, your character gets a new chance to pursue his goals, you get additional playtime (on or off-screen) to develop your character. It's the GM saying, "Hey bro, let's you and I come up with some new fun in-game developments for Captain Awesome to deal with!" For these reasons, I see gaining a new complication as a good thing, not a bad thing. You don't get points for it, instead you get screen time.

[Christopher]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

No' date=' it's not how the rules operate[/quote']

Thats funny, because they say they do work that way: 6E1 417.

However there is also the option to trade the bew ones in for those that "don't apply anymore" (wich may mean solved or the GM doesn't want to use them). It's the same thing as that you don't have to pay points for new favors someone owns you or new contacts. Or this gratis expansion of your base/vehicle.

And of course you can play in way, that not everybody want's to kill you after you stopped them (maybe without them even noticing it was you).

 

But to quote Lucius from to most recent COM vs Striking appereance debate:

"You already altered the rules, so what do you care about what's written in the books anyway?"

[Orion]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Thats funny' date=' because they say they do work that way: 6E1 417.[/quote']

 

Gaahhh....It was supposed to say "Now, it is how the rules operate...." Will correct than very soon now.

 

But to quote Lucius from to most recent COM vs Striking appereance debate: "You already altered the rules' date=' so what do you care about what's written in the books anyway?"[/quote']

 

Just discussing the issue, hoping to influence others, and help the world see that my way is the only way! But seriously, it's my observation that dogmatically following the rules almost always results in a worse experience for all. In the few cases I have seen where it doesn't, every time it was because dogmatism was seen as the only way to handle a problem player. Personally, I would have been willing to just toss those players out the door, but they weren't my games or house.

 

No set of rules can handle every possible situation. Some solve that by never letting the situation come up. I'm happy to ignore the problem rule or to wing it and create a new one when it happens. When you have good players that aren't trying to abuse the system (rare, unfortunately), sometimes the rules hamper them. In Hero, the guideline / rule of balancing points and taking a certain number of complications has done that more often than not in my experience, and I'd like to see it changed. Maybe if I'd play in different groups over the years I'd see it in a different way. Dunno.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

But seriously' date=' it's my observation that dogmatically following the rules almost always results in a worse experience for all. [/quote']

 

Elizabeth Turner: "... wait, you have to take me to shore, according to the code of the Order of the Brethren ..."

 

Captain Barbossa: "... first, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so it must do nothing, and secondly you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply and you're not, and thirdly the code is more of what you call guidelines than actual rules, welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner ..."

[pinecone]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'm curious also' date=' but have any of you used experience points to buy down Complications? Or had them evolve, as character growth, into a different tendency?[/quote']

 

On occasion, though I personally prefer to 'mutate" disadds instead.....so I overcome my fear of fire, but now have a DNPC (that I saved from said fire....) Or I put the mob out of business, but now the Triads are moving in.....

[Orion]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

...and thirdly the code is more of what you call guidelines than actual rules...

 

Oh, I totally agree, and that's the crux of the problem. In my experience, it's rare to find players or GMs that see it this way. Every Hero campaign I've ever been in had house rules, but the rules had to be followed. I'm just open about the possibility that as a GM, I may feel it best to toss a rule out for the benefit of the storyline. I'll also have the villains act like tactical idiots if they are winning too easily, or forget to use a few powers/skills/rules that could help them out. If a player said they were really tired of a DNCP and wanted a change, I wouldn't require them to spend exp to do so. I'd ask if they had a preferred method of getting rid of the DNCP, and work it into the storyline, or if they just wanted me to ignore it in the future. I have never ascribed to the idea that complications were there because the player wanted to focus on them - I see them as things that exist, and may need to be focused upon. If the character has a wife and kids, list them as a DNCP so I as a GM know they exist. If you want them involved in the story, let me know, if not, also let me know.

 

Character concept comes first. Then build a character resembling that concept. You don't get more powers and skills because you take more complications - you take whatever is needed to completely define the character concept. Points have no part in this - it's just a guideline. Some characters have lots of complications, others have very few, and neither is necessarily better or more fun to play.

[Christopher]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

If a player said they were really tired of a DNCP and wanted a change' date=' I wouldn't require them to spend exp to do so. I'd ask if they had a preferred method of getting rid of the DNCP, and work it into the storyline, or if they just wanted me to ignore it in the future. I have never ascribed to the idea that complications were there because the player wanted to focus on them - I see them as things that exist, and may need to be focused upon. If the character has a wife and kids, list them as a DNCP so I as a GM know they exist. If you want them involved in the story, let me know, if not, also let me know.[/quote']

It is possible to switch Complications, with the vanilla rules. But when you want to lower the overall value (75 Points to 70 Points), then you have to spend XP.

 

Also, a DNCP might not be the right place for a family that never get's involved. Complications are only about what get's involved in the game.

Perhaps as a DNCP (occurence: never, 0 Matching Complication Points)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

You can always change the base model of the game, of course. By RAW, however, the default is that, if you want to have less, or no, complications, then you have less points to spend on powers and abilities.

 

Viewed another way, you have 400 points to spend and MUST have 75 points of complications minimum. However, just like you can buy Characteristics as a power, or skills as a power, you may buy a power called Reduced Complications Minimum. Every point spent reduces your Complications Minimum by one point. There, now everyone has 400 points whether they choose to take complications or buy Reduced Complications as a power.

[Christopher]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

You can always change the base model of the game' date=' of course. By RAW, however, the default is that, if you want to have less, or no, complications, then you have less points to spend on powers and abilities.[/quote']

You missunderstand, this is not about the poitns on the sheet or even the rules. It's about complication/point philosophies.

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'd been meaning to discuss Complications in the context of Followers et. al (partly because I ran into questions on a Summoned being) so when this came up I decided to crosspost it here for discussion.

 

This is mainly for Supers' date=' I build Followers like PCs(75 pts of Complications) but there wasn't any reason to get PCs to take any Complications on Vehicles and Bases since the cost was the same so I changed it.[/quote']

 

So I have a couple of questions on this.

 

First, do you require all Player Characters to take the full 75 pts? I can't take an unComplicated character and just have fewer Total Points?

 

Second, what if someone spends, say, 5 pts on a Follower, so the Follower should have by the rules 25 Total Points. Do they still need 75 pts of Complications?

 

Finally, say I spend 20 pts on a Follower so it has 100 Total Points. Can I spend 25 of them on actual Characteristics and Skills and spend 75 pts on a custom "UnComplicated Character" Power and have no Complications?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has a feeling this post will be cross-posted to the thread Lucius started called "More Complications Please."

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I hope you don't mind, Christopher, but I'm also going to crosspost this (with emphasis added.) Because you seem to be one of the few voices saying this.

 

It also used to be my position (although I would not have expressed it that way.) I'm no longer certain of my position, which is one reason why I started the Complications thread and am trying to keep the discussion going.

 

But I want the kind of things you're saying to be heard in that thread.

 

The best way might be to determeine the power Level of the Follower (thats how the official works seem to do it). That way we get suiteable Charactersitics/Power Limits as well as a guideline for home many complications he should/has to take. I also think the Followers should be at least one "level" lower than the hero. (so a standart superhero might not have more than a Low-Powered Sidekick). Of course, some exeptions may be possible especially when the Follower has a required roll or some other limitation (preferebly GM choce when he is avalible). But it could be very anoying to have one player controll 1 400 pt-Follower and 1 320 pt Champion (when the others don't).

 

One different aproach to see the complications/base points: You normaly have to take a 400 pt champion with 75 Complications, but can "buy off" the Complications with the other points. So 325 with no Complciations is still a 400 pt Superhero (one with no vulnerabilites, DNCP, problems with his ID, no hunteds).

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a 2,000 point palindromedary follower