phoenix240 Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 While spending some time on another gaming forum I've noticed allot of dislike for Hero System's means of granting extra points. That is players chose Complications at the beginning of character generation. I've noticed 6th Edition phrases it differently but it still basically the same thing and, for various, reasons it seems to be an unpopular option in so called "modern games". Personally, I like it but I can use the other method characters can some sort of reward when their flaws come up in play just as well so personally its purely a matter of taste. Actually I sort of use both, giving points up front then awarding exceptional play of disads with bennies in play. But some people seem to get really worked up about. I was wondering what thoughts people had here about the differences, pros and cons of each each method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems The points are only a Guideline. Any GM can define the limits however they like, but from what I see most tend to go with the 400/75. The genre/age the campaing plays in can have a influence on that (Iron Age tends to have more). Personally i would not defend myself against a 400/0 Campaing, where you only write down what you really think matters and if I ever should get to that amount of experience and free time I will definetely consider making such a campaign. For "Bonus throuh complications that come into play", there is the Heroic Action Points System (6E2 287) and I think it has rules for getting more from complications. Overall how much Complications influence the gameplay depends a lot on the GM (afaik, in earlier Versions Complications had a "Activation Roll", but now there are rough Frequency guidelines). Some hit them regulary with an NPC they ever meet/befriend (regardless of them being DNCP's or just the Portier at their home), while others tend to use them more as background things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems As far as I can say (I'm new to HERO, but I've been into systems with "disadvantages" for a very long time), this depends heavily on the game. I like HERO systems way of doing complications because they scale (for example - being ham fisted or fat may be worth the same in most games, but it won't be worth anything in some, less than "normal" in some and more in some other). Alas, I think there are 2 different types of disadvantages/complication - I've made that distinction long ago, but it really matters only in HERO: 1. Roleplaying complications. 2. Mechanical disadvantages. The first group limits players options, forces his character to behave in a specific way in specific set of circumstances - he will take some action when the complications shows up (for example - go to rescue a loved one) or he will refrain from taking an action (code against killing). These complications shouldn't give player points (they work good as "meet complication goal set") because they suffer from diminishing returns and do not justify increased effectiveness imho, and they don't really make the character less powerful. As such, many physical limitations are also like this - like being ham fisted - unless the character in question is truly limited in terms of abilities (such as "my power is unreliable and doesn't always work in my favour" characters or "I'm a space pilot in space opera, but my sight is terrible and I often have issues due to this fact". The second group limits characters abilities - silver hurts a lot more, your skin is easily pierced by bullets, you are flammable, you need blood / souls / psychic energy to survive and will die without it etc. (though dependencies may only limit behavior, depending on campaigns). Such disadvantages could give points back. For example, in my racial package deals, having such a disadvantage reduces the cost of the package deal (as a house rule). Other complications (those that only limit behavior) don't do this. So, to sum up - I allow players who take complications that limit their power to receive additional points, but I don't allow it if the complication only limits options the character has. You could also look at this another way: when your enemies can use your complication to limit your power (not options!), it could give points back. Otherwise, it's nice to count it in "mandatory complications", but otherwise having more than required shouldn't change anything. Edit: as for the whole idea behind complications, I think most people need such system. Many players (especially new players) prefer to make their characters flawless and perfect - they always take the most rational decision, they never act on emotions when it's likely to impair them etc. As for more experienced players (who could actually roleplay emotional responses of their characters without any reminders), complications allow to set for a "level" of flaws that will suit all the players and the GM without pushing the game toward focusing on a single characters issues. Overall - they make for more interesting characters and I don't think it's bad that the GM has to somehow put those disadvantages in play. But I dislike the thesis that "you got points for it, so now it's time to show you why". Many complications just increase roleplaying potential and I treat the "advised complication limit" like "this is for you so you can make this character a believable being, but you must accept the fact that these complications exist and you must remember about it". They will show up, but not as a method of showing a player what he got the points for. On the other hand, those disadvantages that I give points back for (the "limiting power" ones) will be used in such a way that the character will find out why he got points for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems The first group limits players options' date=' forces his character to behave in a specific way in specific set of circumstances - he will take some action when the complications shows up (for example - go to rescue a loved one) or he will refrain from taking an action (code against killing). These complications shouldn't give player points (they work good as "meet complication goal set") because they suffer from diminishing returns and do not justify increased effectiveness imho, and they don't really make the character less powerful.[/quote'] When the enemy does not uses them against him, yes they do not lesser his effectiveness. But using a CvK "against" a Hero requires a good GM, so it may not be often used or is hard to pull of. Using DNCP's usually requires to identify them as DNCP's so most people think that includes blowing the Secret ID, but it does not needs to be that way: In "The Dark Knight" the joker identified batmans DNCP without knowing who Batman is. When a GM thinks he cannot use them as often/hindering as the guidelines sugest that can normally be modelled with a fitting (lower) Severity and/or Frequency and thus less points, instead of declaring them totally worthless. They still have a value as Plot hooks (and even those uses count as encountering that complication according to the genre books). Of course CvK is often better placed under "Everyman Complications" - ones you (need to) have for the tone of the campaign, but that do not count for matching complication points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems When the enemy does not uses them against him' date=' yes they do not lesser his effectiveness. But using a CvK "against" a Hero requires a good GM, so it may not be often used or is hard to pull of. Using DNCP's usually requires to identify them as DNCP's so most people think that includes blowing the Secret ID, but it does not needs to be that way: In "The Dark Knight" the joker identified batmans DNCP without knowing who Batman is.[/quote'] Certainly, but imho, that doesn't justify getting more points for such a complication. It's just fun and nice for a character to have (and that is what "required complications" are for I think, and that is why having them gives nothing, but not having them takes something away). When a GM thinks he cannot use them as often/hindering as the guidelines sugest that can normally be modelled with a fitting (lower) Severity and/or Frequency and thus less points, instead of declaring them totally worthless. They still have a value as Plot hooks (and even those uses count as encountering that complication according to the genre books). Of course CvK is often better placed under "Everyman Complications" - ones you (need to) have for the tone of the campaign, but that do not count for matching complication points. I agree - but my point is that there are significant differences between "behavior limiting" complications and those that directly limit someones powers. The first type I use as ploot hooks (or take advantage of them during adventures to design interesting situations), but these limits don't make the character more or less powerful (At least in my experience). They influence roleplaying - adventures, how they go, what heroes do, not their power. They may be limiting in combat and even lead to a heroes demise (sacrificing himself for a loved one etc.), but most of the time, they don't influence how powerful the character is. The second type limits powers directly. If I am vulnerable to silver, then I am easier to kill than I would normaly be by anyone who knows about my vulnerability and cares to use silver. This, in my opinion, usually justifies additional points (like reducing the cost of a package deal). I know this won't work for anyone, but in my campaigns there are usually some powerful races with certain vulnerabilities or dependencies that just have to be playable. And I think complications that limit power justify some increased power, when the effects can't be modeled with power limitations. For example, "young werewolf is more powerful than a human being, but he is also vulnerable to silver, which makes them more or less even in overall, and the young werewolf is less powerful than a human armed with a gun with silver bullets". As for using complications in play - I tend to not be cruel about it - that's all. I use the rules for "limiting" complications as rough guidelines - maybe that's because in my experience, many players avoid certain types of complications, even appropriate ones, because they know that the GM will be cruel about it and they are not willing to accept as much trouble as the complication gives because it won't be fun for them. Mandatory complications are that - you pick them to make a character believable, interesting. They are always there and my players always know this, they roleplay their complications very well. But if I don't feel like throwing a "complicated" situation at the players during play, I don't, even if I somehow, by the rules "should". I just think that limiting complications create the character, and aid roleplaying, but I don't see them as "since it's worth 10 points, you must always suffer for it". I make the characters suffer for power limitations though ;p Of course - if a complication is worth 10 points, and the other 5 points, the first one will be more painful to have. If a player takes a complications that appears frequently, it will appear frequently. If he makes it very impairing, it will be. I just won't be cruel about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems I agree - but my point is that there are significant differences between "behavior limiting" complications and those that directly limit someones powers. The first type I use as ploot hooks (or take advantage of them during adventures to design interesting situations)' date=' but these limits don't make the character more or less powerful.[/quote'] And even that is where a good GM can weaken your powers by using your DNCP's/CvK. To cite a scene from Justice League Cartoon Series, the Mirror Universe Episode: "There are about a dozen ways I can stop before you can use that button, Lex." - Superman "But each of them involves deadly force, don't they?" - Lex Luthor (This being the Mirror universe and the point where the Mirror Superman decides to break his CvK, this ended not so well for Mirror Lex). Having to leave the fight because the enemy made a deathtrap with your DNCP inside is about the greates hindereance you can get (you are out of the fight, so it's around Transform to stone statue for matters of ability to influence the fight). You could be a master telepath, maybe even with a "license to Mindread and Mindbend", but if your morals say you will never use your powers that way you are very effectively hindered by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems And these examples show where such complications might be worth points (instead of counting in the "complications pool") in my books. I'm not really into the "good GM" argument - I don't see how this has anything to do with the issue. Being a good GM and finding interesting way to play with complications the PCs have and their effect on their powers are not actually connected in my mind. Unless you imply that only bad GMs count some complications as not having any effect on how powerful the character is - then I've been a bad GM my entire life. I've even allowed players to have a family without paying for a DNPC (called "Dependent" in GURPS) so that he doesn't have to spend a lot of time and effort to protect them ;-) Some complications are seriously impairing (and I would give a PC points for them even if they would be above complication limit) and some are not (and wouldn't count in my books). In many campaigns, the distinction is not needed. The question is not if or how complications are limiting - all of them are, and all of them can be creatively used by the GM. The question is if their system can be modeled - in my opinion, it can be, but only to the side of "what happens if my character should have more complications than the campaign average?". As for the DNPC / deathtrap issue, you are right, but my players protect their DNPCs very well since I've used a similar idea some years ago (three opponents PC fought with at that time kidnapped their DNPCs and put them in 3 locations, while invading their home for tech and intel - they had to choose where to be, so they lost their HQ and one DNPC). Having them kidnapped "just because" right now would ruin willing suspension of disbelief and be completely irrational (though I've reduced their DNPCs value because of this fact). If someone goes after them, they usually never reach them. This had been used by PCs enemies (fake an attack on PCs "base" so that they show up to protect their families, while doing the evil stuff). Does this limit power? In my opinion? No. Does being "out of the fight" because a DNPC make hero less powerful every battle? No. It happens - that's the reason it's a complication and it counts as one. But that wouldn't be a reason for me to extend the rules to allow the player to take points for it if he was above the limit. In my games, having a DNPC usually means a character spends serious time and effort to protect him/her from harm, not only act when he/she is kidnapped or in danger. Players dictate how complications are used most of the time - I won't break believability for the sake of "making the character feel the complications in this particular way because I want to". That is what I mean by "cruelty". If, despite all the effort (and good ideas) on part of the PCs, their DNPCs disappear from their HQ and are put into a deathtrap, that is just plain stupid. As for the "I can Mindread and Mindbend but I won't" or "I have the power but I will never use it to kill" or "I can create everything but I will never use it to accumulate wealth because I think it's not fair" - that would be a justification for not having a perk/power a character should have or a limitation on power in my books, not a complication per se. If a character never uses the power (and he doesn't even intimidate his foes with it), he shouldn't pay for it. If he has it, but he never uses it except by threatening to use it, he should pay something, but not the full value. As for the CvK - in some campaigns it might be just as impairing as you say, in some, it may be not (especially if the character has a reliable way of putting someone down without risking his death). For Superman, I'd give points for CvK if he exceeded limitations total, for "a guy with ZONK beam which causes loss of consciousness when it hits" I would not. Many comicbook characters have complications which truly limit their behavior - in games, players usually pick something that is limiting (if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a complication), but something they can live with. A character that can either kill or lightly wound would not have CvK unless the player had to take it. If he had to, I wouldn't mind giving him some more points for it to make up for this, if he had his "complication pool" full. I don't argue that some complications are useless and others are not - you seem to prove that that's not the case. I never said it was. I am just willing to give some characters additional points for exceeding complication total, while I am not willing to do that for other characters. I just noted that some complications usually belong to one group, while some to the other. From experience I can tell that "vulnerability" is nearly always in the second group, while various "codes of honor" are in the first along with DNPCs, Reputations and Social Disadvantages which don't appear every single session. In my current campaign, I allowed a vampire reduce his package deal cost because of his vampiric disadvantages (he would be very happy to be less powerful and get rid of those). On the other hand, he has his own 75 points of limitations just as the other character and they are heavily limited by those complications. If he had another code of honor or social complication, I wouldn't increase his total. Had he taken CvK for some bizzare reason, I wouldn't increase his total (he has powers to neutralize an opponent without killing him) - he already has quite enough psychological complications for me to work with, I don't think another would matter. Had he taken a greater vulnerability to fire, I would. Because I think vulnerability to fire and "I get few more points" balance out without making him a cripple. I may be wrong about CvK however - I confess that none of my players ever took any such disadvantage. I have one player who frequently takes "Cannot harm innocents, and even do anything that leads to innocents being harmed", but not more. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems Unless you imply that only bad GMs count some complications as not having any effect on how powerful the character is - then I've been a bad GM my entire life. I've even allowed players to have a family without paying for a DNPC (called "Dependent" in GURPS) so that he doesn't have to spend a lot of time and effort to protect them ;-) No, that is good Gm-ing. A player should not be hindered by something he got no matching complication points for. (at least not regulary, exceptions can be always there). What I do not like is the Artificial seperation between Roleplaying and Mechanical Complications: A cleverly used DNCP can be more hindering than your succeptibility for Green Argonite. And it does not always needs to be the deathtrap to hinder you. On the other side even "Mechanical" Complicatiosn can have a roleplaying aspect: Is Superman willing to go to a planet with a Red Sun, regardless of the fact that he is powerless there? Would the Martian Manhunter go to the Planet Inferno, where most of the surface is permanently on fire? Most human have a complication "Not Swordproof" and "Dies without Air", so they would not jump into Blades (without protection they deem sufficient) or walk into the Vacuum of space unprotected. If they do (risk endangering themself to something that can hurt or kill them), this is certainly a heroic action. The only difference between Humans and Superhumans in that regard is the higher resistance towards damage. So Superhumans need greater dangers, or a vulnerability in order to act heroically and a lot more of their complications actually land on their sheets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems That is not exactly why I put disadvantages in two groups. Vulnerability to a rare substance wouldn't land in the "mechanical" group, as it would rarely come into play. I take my picks on case-by-case basis - the division is created for players (and everyone who reads about the idea) to know that some "mechanical" disadvantages of their characters that are constantly in play are worth taking, because having them alongside other complications gives some points back. Also, if a race is vulnerable to something (werewolves and vampires to silver, fey creatures to cold iron or what have you), this disadvantage "stays" with the character the same way bought back MDCV or lower-than-average STR does. It is not the question of how hindering the complication is - it's how often it comes into play. A Dependant can be extremely hindering. How often? Not often. Does taking a dependant justify stronger character? No. Does taking any complication that comes to play from time to time justify a character being stronger? No. Are there complications that make the character, as he is, with his abilities, weaker all the time? Yes there are. What to do? Possibly nothing, but does not having complications justify weaker character? Certainly. So if not having complications can justify being weaker (not having disadvantages is an advantage in itself), then what complications would justify a stronger character? Those "mechanical", which exist outside of roleplaying and can be measured in making a character weaker. But the unresolved question for me (and my players) was "what if my character should be vulnerable to something?" And something that is not rare or even uncommon to see in the setting. Noone I know would play a character with vulnerability to common attacks. Why? Because you can pick other disads, that are in total worth the same, but don't hinder you as often, even if they are quite severe. And if you take a vulnerability to a common attack, you are inviting death to come for you. So to encourage such complications (and picking races who have them), they must do something. If they are constant, and the character is at least 90% of the time weaker because of them, why not give the player bonus points? That division is not artificial, but my generalization of what would be in the first group most of the time, and what would most of the time be in the second group probably is. I just think, based on experience as a GM, that there will always be risk and decision involved - if you can include complications in what happens - all the better. But if no PC had dependents, and I wanted to see how they handle some rescuing, I'd just kidnap any NPC who is important to the players. They would risk all the same - if they fail, the failure is not lesser because the character who died wasn't a DNPC. If no character is a pacifist, I may still test how far they will go, how much are they willing to sacrifice. Most of my players throughout the years prefered not to pick disadvantages which would solve how far they are willing to go to still have a dilema other than "well my character would never kill, so I'm powerless here". I just think that complications only point to players taste in what he wants to have issues with in play. If he takes DNPCs, I know what kind of adventures will be connected to it. After 10 years of gaming, I think most of my players also realise what it means. If a player takes Secret ID, we know that he will have to defend his privacy many times. If he takes CvK (never happend, but if it would happen) he knows he will be placed in situations where killing would be the simple and wise choice and he has to think of something different. If he didn't have any of the above, would that mean he doesn't have anything hindering him? All his life is a road of sweet success without dilemas? No it isn't. Complications only sanction what was there for years of roleplaying in systems that had no complications / disadvantage system - the fact that the GM will try, from time to time, to create a hard situation, where the choices are hard and the consequences are hard. System of complications just makes it easier for the GM to think of something and include it, and there is a great chance that such choice of situations will be fun for the players (they pick the complications after all). It, at the very least, gives the GM a hint "so here's what you can do to make this choice hard for this character" and stimulate good roleplaying oportunities. But I needed something that would encourage picking serious complications that wouldn't actually be there in a complication-free game. Noone wanted to play blind people in Warhammer. Why? Because they didn't get anything from the fact that they can't see. The same goes for people with one hand, one eye, vulnerable to silver, wood or what have you. The balance was thus ruined - the handicaped character wasn't fun to play - he was always lagging behind. Say, if character A has a wife and two children somewhere and character B is vulnerable to things that pierce his skin - would character B not be hindered by character's A complication? He would - he would aid his friend in rescuing his wife and children if a situation arised and they were in danger. Would character A be hindered by character's B vulnerability? No - unless you count "my friend is kissing the dirt so I have to fight you alone" as hindrance (as if that doesn't happen often enough already without any special disads). Would you allow character B to take character's A family as dependents? Would character B even want that? I think no. He may not even care about them - it is his friendship with A that is important. If A had a debt or problems with mombsters, he would also help. If character A has a duty to his church, and character B has no duty, and church calls for aid (say it's a fantasy setting), would character B not go? He would go, because his friend asks him to go. The player would decide to go because they are a team and this is an adventure. Is it the same for him? Probably not, because he doesn't suffer the consequences of failure (and probably also doesn't benefit as much from success). Does that duty make character A limited? Yes. Does it limit character B? Kind of. But if there were no duty, wouldn't they go on a mission? They probably would, because that's what the game is about - doing something, not sitting in a tavern the whole session being safe and sound. Does that complication actually change anything? Not exactly. It's fun, it aids roleplaying, but it isn't, in its basis, something that limits the character in a hard-coded way. I know it's hard to show the difference, but I hope you get the idea about what I mean from this examples. Many psychological or social complications stacked I've never liked. If players have too many of them, they stop to be worth it. But some complications, no matter how many you have already, are still impairing your character. And since I generally don't like complications that are 1/0 in effect ("you either spend every night in a coffin or you will die after a short while, so you die if you get captured, and you are often captured if deafeated, thus - you will die if defeated" - this is my favourite of such complications), I had to figure something out, especially for many beings that exist in fiction, which are very powerful, yet also limited and powerless in some circumstances. I guess vampires wouldn't need all that shapeshifting, regeneration, speed, strenght and agility if not for the fact that few simple silver bullets (or "holy" or "gralic-imbued" or what have you) or few beams of sunlight (in most fiction) can put them down. If there would never be adventures about your complication, I would probably count it as "mechanical" (As bad name as any, by the way - I have no good way to call them). There are no epic tales about a guy who bursts with energy when he is shot (like Pulsar) that start with "so since Pulsar is vulnerable to piercing, one day...". Well, maybe except gritty medieval times, where there are adventures that begin with "you wake up with a terrible cough - you find out that you are coughing blood and it stinks like hell". Such complications exist not in the base of roleplaying (and are as limiting as their worth, the situation and dramatic purposes call for) but in the base of game mechanics. "I get more damage from X" is certainly not a roleplaying effect (though it may lead to interesting situations just as any complication can - I can imagine a "good" version of Pulsar throwing himself between a gun and an innocent being knowing he will get hurt bad). Such complications truly hinder the character, always, no matter what is going on. But if a specific complication has this effect usually depend on the character in question. After giving it some thinking, I think CvK would likely be such a limitation more often than not. I never overdo this rule though - 20-30 points in a 400 point game would be the top one could get from this "rule". And in the campaign I'm running in HERO, only racial package deals count. Otherwise, all of my players would play humans ("what the heck do I need this ability to regenerate 1 HP per day for? and the tail? it's a waste of points - I'd rather make a coherent character out of it - I like the race, I like how it looks and their culture, but their abilities are far away from my concept and will really be useless 90% of the time. Wait, I'm not wasting 20 points because they are vulnerable to bacteria in wood? Ok, I can manage that - I'll still have the points to get the abilities this character needs. I'll just try to avoid arrows and spears"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems That is not exactly why I put disadvantages in two groups. Vulnerability to a rare substance wouldn't land in the "mechanical" group' date=' as it would rarely come into play. I take my picks on case-by-case basis - the division is created for players (and everyone who reads about the idea) to know that some "mechanical" disadvantages of their characters that are constantly in play are worth taking, because having them alongside other complications gives some points back. Also, if a race is vulnerable to something (werewolves and vampires to silver, fey creatures to cold iron or what have you), this disadvantage "stays" with the character the same way bought back MDCV or lower-than-average STR does. It is not the question of how hindering the complication is - it's how often it comes into play.[/quote'] How does an Argonian's susceptibility to Green Argonite "stay with the character" any less than a Vampire's susceptibility to garlic? Perhaps one is more common - but you get more complication points for the more common one. A Dependant can be extremely hindering. How often? Not often. As often as its frequency dictates. Just like a vulnerability or susceptibility. Does taking a dependant justify stronger character? No. Does taking any complication that comes to play from time to time justify a character being stronger? No. By that logic, what complications DO justify a stronger character? And, if I am reading your comments correctly, you are not denying the character points for these complications, but simply setting a maximum number of points they can obtain from those complications. If I take 75 points of complications, including 25 points you deem "mechanical", I am no stronger than if all 75 were points you do not deem "mechanical". Are there complications that make the character, as he is, with his abilities, weaker all the time? Yes there are. What to do? Possibly nothing, but does not having complications justify weaker character? Certainly. So if not having complications can justify being weaker (not having disadvantages is an advantage in itself), then what complications would justify a stronger character? Those "mechanical", which exist outside of roleplaying and can be measured in making a character weaker. But the unresolved question for me (and my players) was "what if my character should be vulnerable to something?" And something that is not rare or even uncommon to see in the setting. No one I know would play a character with vulnerability to common attacks. I see many complications that involve fairly common substances. The player acknowledges and accepts that this will often be a hindrance. That is how he built his character. Why? Because you can pick other disads' date=' that are in total worth the same, but don't hinder you as often, even if they are quite severe. And if you take a vulnerability to a common attack, you are inviting death to come for you.[/quote'] If that is the case, why have your example characters, the Vampire (who, based on your comments above, is "inviting death to come") and the Gadgeteer (who, I assume, issued no such invitation) both survived for an extended period of time? A good GM will use complications like he uses powers and skills - to give the characters spotlight time. A bad GM will use them as leverage to make the player miserable (whether by killing the character, humiliating it, or what have you). But any GM - good or bad - can kill the characters at any time, complications or not. So to encourage such complications (and picking races who have them)' date=' they must do [i']something[/i]. If they are constant, and the character is at least 90% of the time weaker because of them, why not give the player bonus points? That division is not artificial, but my generalization of what would be in the first group most of the time, and what would most of the time be in the second group probably is. So silver weapons, to pick one of your examples, are omnipresent - the Vampire is attacked with them in nine combats out of ten? If he is so vulnerable, how is he still alive and kicking? By the way, if Vampy wants points back to spend, not just complication points, for his Vulnerability to silver, buy a significant chunk of his defenses "not vs silver". That, you can be assured, will impact his ability to survive. I just think' date=' based on experience as a GM, that there will always be risk and decision involved - if you can include complications in what happens - all the better. But if no PC had dependents, and I wanted to see how they handle some rescuing, I'd just kidnap any NPC who is important to the players. They would risk all the same - if they fail, the failure is not lesser because the character who died wasn't a DNPC. If no character is a pacifist, I may still test how far they will go, how much are they willing to sacrifice. Most of my players throughout the years prefered [i']not to pick [/i]disadvantages which would solve how far they are willing to go to still have a dilema other than "well my character would never kill, so I'm powerless here". I just think that complications only point to players taste in what he wants to have issues with in play. If he takes DNPCs, I know what kind of adventures will be connected to it. After 10 years of gaming, I think most of my players also realise what it means. If a player takes Secret ID, we know that he will have to defend his privacy many times. If he takes CvK (never happend, but if it would happen) he knows he will be placed in situations where killing would be the simple and wise choice and he has to think of something different. If he didn't have any of the above, would that mean he doesn't have anything hindering him? All his life is a road of sweet success without dilemas? No it isn't. Complications only sanction what was there for years of roleplaying in systems that had no complications / disadvantage system - the fact that the GM will try, from time to time, to create a hard situation, where the choices are hard and the consequences are hard. System of complications just makes it easier for the GM to think of something and include it, and there is a great chance that such choice of situations will be fun for the players (they pick the complications after all). It, at the very least, gives the GM a hint "so here's what you can do to make this choice hard for this character" and stimulate good roleplaying oportunities.[\quote] I find complications force thinking about what makes the character tick - what makes him a CHARACTER rather than a cardboard pawn on a chessboard, always making the best tactical move he can. But I needed something that would encourage picking serious complications that wouldn't actually be there in a complication-free game. No one wanted to play blind people in Warhammer. Why? Because they didn't get anything from the fact that they can't see. The same goes for people with one hand, one eye, vulnerable to silver, wood or what have you. The balance was thus ruined - the handicaped character wasn't fun to play - he was always lagging behind. Say, if character A has a wife and two children somewhere and character B is vulnerable to things that pierce his skin - would character B not be hindered by character's A complication? He would - he would aid his friend in rescuing his wife and children if a situation arised and they were in danger. Would character A be hindered by character's B vulnerability? No - unless you count "my friend is kissing the dirt so I have to fight you alone" as hindrance (as if that doesn't happen often enough already without any special disads). How is it less of a hindrance to need to protect your friend the other PC than to need to protect an NPC? Would you allow character B to take character's A family as dependents? Would character B even want that? I think no. He may not even care about them - it is his friendship with A that is important. If A had a debt or problems with mombsters, he would also help. If character A has a duty to his church, and character B has no duty, and church calls for aid (say it's a fantasy setting), would character B not go? He would go, because his friend asks him to go. The player would decide to go because they are a team and this is an adventure. Is it the same for him? Probably not, because he doesn't suffer the consequences of failure (and probably also doesn't benefit as much from success). Does that duty make character A limited? Yes. Does it limit character B? Kind of. But if there were no duty, wouldn't they go on a mission? They probably would, because that's what the game is about - doing something, not sitting in a tavern the whole session being safe and sound. Does that complication actually change anything? Not exactly. It's fun, it aids roleplaying, but it isn't, in its basis, something that limits the character in a hard-coded way. And, if the Vampire were not vulnerable to silver, would he face no attacks that were dangerous to him, or would he face attacks that are dangerous for reasons other than his vulnerability? Does he face enemies who have attacks large enough to be a serious threat without his vulnerability, that are then magnified by that vulnerability, so go make a new character, or does Silver become a simple means for the GM to expose the character to danger? I know it's hard to show the difference, but I hope you get the idea about what I mean from this examples. Many psychological or social complications stacked I've never liked. If players have too many of them, they stop to be worth it. But some complications, no matter how many you have already, are still impairing your character. And since I generally don't like complications that are 1/0 in effect ("you either spend every night in a coffin or you will die after a short while, so you die if you get captured, and you are often captured if deafeated, thus - you will die if defeated" - this is my favourite of such complications), I had to figure something out, especially for many beings that exist in fiction, which are very powerful, yet also limited and powerless in some circumstances. I guess vampires wouldn't need all that shapeshifting, regeneration, speed, strenght and agility if not for the fact that few simple silver bullets (or "holy" or "gralic-imbued" or what have you) or few beams of sunlight (in most fiction) can put them down. So how has he managed to avoid these easy means of ensuring his destruction? Do a lot of game sessions take place in open sunlight, so the Vampire player has to sit out as his character can't be of any assistance, or is the game tailored to be challenging, in part due to his weaknesses, but not lethal because of his weaknesses? I never overdo this rule though - 20-30 points in a 400 point game would be the top one could get from this "rule". And in the campaign I'm running in HERO' date=' only racial package deals count. Otherwise, all of my players would play humans ("what the heck do I need this ability to regenerate 1 HP per day for? and the tail? it's a waste of points - I'd rather make a coherent character out of it - I like the race, I like how it looks and their culture, but their abilities are far away from my concept and will really be useless 90% of the time. Wait, I'm not wasting 20 points because they are vulnerable to bacteria in wood? Ok, I can manage that - I'll still have the points to get the abilities this character needs. I'll just try to avoid arrows and spears").[/quote'] If the abilities in question don't carry enough value to justify their cost, I suggest it is the abilities being overpriced in your game setting which creates the problem, not the inability to offset those costs with complications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems There is a distinction I've bene wanting to focus on between two kinds of Complications, and I am not sure but I think it may be related to the distinction Thane is trying to make. Bear with me a moment. In a thread I started (More Complications Please, if you want to look it up) my attention was focused on something I'd been sort-of peripherally aware of for a long time but hadn't thought much about. Most Hero players regard a character with X Total Points as more desireable than a character with Character A has 350 Free Points, plus 50 Complication Points, thus 400 Total Points. Character B has 350 Free Points and no Complications, thus 350 Total Points. Almost universally Hero players regard the first character as "more powerful" or a better character, despite having the burden of 50 pts in Complications that the second character is free of. In other words, 50 pts in Complications are NOT actually "equal and opposite" to 50 pts spent on Assets (Characteristics, Skills, Powers, etc.) And this bothers me because I think an important principle in Hero is that X=X If X When a Hero player thinks that X Now, on to the distinction I wanted to make: I think that there are some Complications that ARE "equal and opposite" in terms of value, and others that are not (or usually or often are not.) The ones that are, I would describe as "mechanical" but I don't think I mean the same thing Thane means. Not exactly. I mean that they're about points balancing, in the same way that I might say "Okay, my mermaid character sells off almost all her Running and puts those points into Swimming." The other category I'm not sure what to call; maybe "rewards." They're points that in a sense are a reward for defining your character personaly or background more precisely or providing plot hooks or otherwise making the Game Operations Director's job easier or making the game more fun for all. To paraphrase Hugh Neilson's phrasing, they don't carry enough negative value to justify their negative cost. Or I could just call them "X=X" Complications and "X My prime example of an X=X Complication: Unluck. It is precisely equal and opposite Luck. If it's not, it's an issue of the person running the game under- or over- emphasizing Luck or Unluck. They are mechanically identical. My prime example of an X Lucius Alexander Palindromedary = Palindromedary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems How does an Argonian's susceptibility to Green Argonite "stay with the character" any less than a Vampire's susceptibility to garlic? Perhaps one is more common - but you get more complication points for the more common one. That's what I said - being vulnerable to common materials is substantially different than being vulnerable to uncommon/rare ones. By that logic, what complications DO justify a stronger character? And, if I am reading your comments correctly, you are not denying the character points for these complications, but simply setting a maximum number of points they can obtain from those complications. If I take 75 points of complications, including 25 points you deem "mechanical", I am no stronger than if all 75 were points you do not deem "mechanical". According to the HERO system - none. You don't get a stronger character for picking complications. You get a weaker character if you don't. This is not the same - in a 400/75 campaign, 400 points is the norm. If you pick only 25 points in complications, "not having" 50 points of complications is regarded as an advantage. Picking more complications does nothing. I see many complications that involve fairly common substances. The player acknowledges and accepts that this will often be a hindrance. That is how he built his character. Maybe we have different experience in this matter. Of all people I've played with, noone ever took anything that has a common effect / substance in it unless he felt that he gets something in return for picking such a complication. It doesn't require much gameplay experience to know that three 5-point complications do not impair the character in the same way as one 15-point complication does unless the GM is willing to be cruel about it. If that is the case, why have your example characters, the Vampire (who, based on your comments above, is "inviting death to come") and the Gadgeteer (who, I assume, issued no such invitation) both survived for an extended period of time? I was not talking about individual situations of two characters in my current campaign. The vamp in my current campaign is balanced by this vulnerabilities. So silver weapons, to pick one of your examples, are omnipresent - the Vampire is attacked with them in nine combats out of ten? Yes he does. It is he who is attacked - 8 of 10 times, it's NPCs who start combat, not players. He is often attacked with silver because everyone who cares to attack him knows, after many, many sessions, that he is a vamprie, and thus, vulnerable to silver. In his situation, I regard silver as common attack. I'm not saying that his vulnerability is worth more than the points mentioned under complication. I'm not even saying that it's something that will certainly kill him. All I'm saying is that I don't treat this complication the same way as his DNPCs. How is it less of a hindrance to need to protect your friend the other PC than to need to protect an NPC? It's not - that's what I'm saying. There's no difference between protecting a PC, DNPC or any NPC friend you are attached to or even any NPC that you are supposed to save during a mission/quest/whatever. Yet you get "complication points" for the DNPC, and not for the rest. And I have nothing against it - but I just wouldn't say that 10-point DNPCs are the same as 10-point Common Vulnerability or buying back SPD. It's worth the same as a complication, but the first disadvantage is subject to diminishing returns on plot-hook-situation-based-roleplaying-complications, while the second one is purely a biological/physical disadvantage. Which brings me to the point - the only thing I'm saying is that I regard some complications the same way as buying back stats - if you buy back 1 SPD, you don't have a 10-point complication. You just get 10 points back. If you buy back any characteristic, it's the same. I just think that some complications in some cases should be treated the same way. So how has he managed to avoid these easy means of ensuring his destruction? Do a lot of game sessions take place in open sunlight, so the Vampire player has to sit out as his character can't be of any assistance, or is the game tailored to be challenging, in part due to his weaknesses, but not lethal because of his weaknesses? I was giving an example from fiction, not talking about a particular character. Most of my campaign vampires are not destroyed by sunlight. As I've said, I hate 0/1 disadvantages - disadvantages that, if they ever come into play, kill the character (get hit by X and die, get captured and die because you lack something that keeps you alive, wear a rebreather mask because you breathe helium - have the mask destroyed and die etc.). So, to sum up: I'm not saying that complications are not worth the points they are listed to be worth. If I think that complication will not limit the character in a listed way, we talk this over with the player and we agree on some rational value. I've never had to argue with any of my players about this. I'm also not saying that complications do not cause complications, or that some cause more than they should or less than they should, subject to genre - but these things are handled by generic descriptions and do not cause issues. All I'm saying is that there are some complications I regard as not being subject to the rule "complications above limit don't do anything" the same way buying back 1 point of OCV doesn't give a 5 point complication but -5 points. If you have a 400/75 character and buy back 1 SPD, you get 10 points back. If you pick less than 66 points of complications, you didn't actually gain anything - and only if you pick all 75, you get a 410/75 character. In my books, some disadvantages should work the same. If you pick a character with a vulnerability to common attack (let's say piercing), and pick all complications to the limit, I will still give you points the for vulnerability, while I wouldn't give you more for a Social Complication. That is all I'm saying. It's (I think) almost the same Lucius is saying, but he talks math while I talk justification, at least that's how I understand it. Maybe I'm just unable to describe what I mean well enough if noone seems to adress what I mean :-) if so, I'm sorry, I can't really describe this to be more comprehendable. Edit: I think Lucius, on the same basis, is drawing somewhat different conclusions. While I just allow some complications (Unluck would certainly be one of them in almost any case) to give points after "complication limit" is reached, Lucius is certain that some complications are really worth less than others / should be priced differently?. But I don't know what he wants to do about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems Which brings me to the point - the only thing I'm saying is that I regard some complications the same way as buying back stats - if you buy back 1 SPD, you don't have a 10-point complication. You just get 10 points back. If you buy back any characteristic, it's the same. I just think that some complications in some cases should be treated the same way. Since this is exactly like something I was already thinking, I think you and I think a lot alike. I think. It may interest you to know that before the current edition, blindness was a Disadvantage (that is, a Complication.) Now, you're supposed to "sell back" the Sense of Sight - which doesn't count against the Complication limit. It's (I think) almost the same Lucius is saying, but he talks math while I talk justification, at least that's how I understand it. Maybe I'm just unable to describe what I mean well enough if noone seems to adress what I mean :-) if so, I'm sorry, I can't really describe this to be more comprehendable. Edit: I think Lucius, on the same basis, is drawing somewhat different conclusions. While I just allow some complications (Unluck would certainly be one of them in almost any case) to give points after "complication limit" is reached, Lucius is certain that some complications are really worth less than others / should be priced differently?. But I don't know what he wants to do about this I'm still thinking about it. I do have some ideas I'm not quite ready to present yet. And I'm open to suggestions. Lucius Alexander The palindromedary suggests I go buy some more alphabet soup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems Well, it's nice to hear someone shares my line of thinking. My "doesn't count against complication pool" rule worked very well in GURPS for many years (and was even incorporated into the game system itself in 4th edition, though I highly doubt if it was because of my thread about it on the forum), but it's hard to say if (and how) it will work in HERO. I don't think it will be all that different (GURPS method of modeling disadvantages and HERO complications work alike, have similar values and I've discovered about 99% of GURPS disads transfer perfectly into HERO). Right now, my players feel that it's ok, but they are used to the old ways, so we'll just have to test this in play some more - if the vampire player who uses this rule to decrease his racial package deal cost (by 30 points total) will come out too powerful, we will start thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems That's what I said - being vulnerable to common materials is substantially different than being vulnerable to uncommon/rare ones. It arises more frequently, thus it is worth more complication points. I can see some merit to treating certain complications as "sellbacks". Another approach is to allow unlimited complication points, but cap the points gained from each type, or even certain types, of complications. But, if I view a Vulnerability as a sellback, I think I would view all Vulnerabilities as a sellback. Just as all characteristics are sellbacks, and I don't decide STR and CON are important in combat, so you sell them back, but INT and EGO aren't that crucial in combat, so you take a "Dim Witted" or "Weak Will" complication for those. According to the HERO system - none. You don't get a stronger character for picking complications. You get a weaker character if you don't. This is not the same - in a 400/75 campaign' date=' 400 points is the norm. If you pick only 25 points in complications, "not having" 50 points of complications is regarded as an advantage. Picking more complications does nothing.[/quote'] There is a cap on complications, yes. That's easily removed, as noted above. Maybe we have different experience in this matter. Of all people I've played with' date=' no one ever took anything that has a common effect / substance in it unless he felt that he gets something in return for picking such a complication. It doesn't require much gameplay experience to know that three 5-point complications do not impair the character in the same way as one 15-point complication does unless the GM is willing to be cruel about it.[/quote'] If three 5 point complications aren't impairing the character, I would say that they are comparatively overvalued. To be valid as a complication, the complication must arise on some reasonable basis. If a given attack, to continue the Vulnerability line, will be seen seldom or never, a vulnerability to that attack is not a 5 point complication, it is not a complication at all. By taking 5 points for the complication, you have stated "I want this to show up in the game on occasion". If, as GM, I expect it will show up once or twice over a five year weekly campaign, or even not show up at all, then I have two choices. Either I revise my plans so it will show up more often or I don't allow points for the complication. I was not talking about individual situations of two characters in my current campaign. The vamp in my current campaign is balanced by this vulnerabilities. So he is not, then, "inviting death" by having a vulnerability to a common attack type, contrary to your claim that accepting such a vulnerability is, in fact, inviting death. Yes he does. It is he who is attacked - 8 of 10 times' date=' it's NPCs who start combat, not players. He is often attacked with silver because everyone who cares to attack him knows, after many, many sessions, that he is a vamprie, and thus, vulnerable to silver. In his situation, I regard silver as common attack. I'm not saying that his vulnerability is worth more than the points mentioned under complication. I'm not even saying that it's something that will certainly kill him. All I'm saying is that I don't treat this complication the same way as his DNPCs.[/quote'] It's worth more as a complication than it would be if silver were not known to injure this type of character, and were therefore encountered infrequently if at all. You have already factored that into the pricing. And it certainly makes sense that this is priced as a common attack type because it is an attack type his enemies know will be especially effective against him, so they use it against him. However, I question how significantly that differs from having a character who is well known to have a connection with ace reporter Penny Paine, which results in his enemies commonly attempting to use that connection against him. If DNPC Penny Paine has been identified as a complication arising as frequently as Silver attacks, then there must be a reason for that frequency. If, in the campaign milieu, the character secretes Penny Paine deep in the witness protection program, so that she cannot be found and used against Our Hero, then one of two things must logically happen. First, these efforts fail, and Penny Paine remains a frequent problem for Our Hero. Second, Our Hero has successfully reduced or removed the potential for Penny Paine to hinder his activities, in which case he must buy down the frequency or buy off the complication - just as cornering the world silver market so no one could ever use a silver weapon against the vampire again would reduce or remove the frequency, and therefore the value, of that complication. It's not - that's what I'm saying. There's no difference between protecting a PC' date=' DNPC or any NPC friend you are attached to or even any NPC that you are supposed to save during a mission/quest/whatever. Yet you get "complication points" for the DNPC, and not for the rest. And I have nothing against it - but I just wouldn't say that 10-point DNPCs are the same as 10-point Common Vulnerability or buying back SPD. It's worth the same as a complication, but the first disadvantage is subject to diminishing returns on plot-hook-situation-based-roleplaying-complications, while the second one is purely a biological/physical disadvantage.[/quote'] I agree to some extent with the NPC logic. If no one has a DNPC, there would still be bystanders to rescue, and the fact no one takes a Hunted does not mean the heroes will lack enemies. At the same time, having taken no complication points, the hero is certainly justified in deciding the NPC is not worth the trouble, but that's really not all that heroic (perhaps that would best be reflected by a Protective of Innocents complication, but that just moves the goalposts a bit). But then, if the standard in the game is 12DC attacks, and the character takes double damage from silver, will he see a ton of 12 DC silver attacks and soon be dead? If he lacked that vulnerability, would he rarely or never face attacks that placed him in real danger? I doubt it. There's no real fun in a game where the GM runs "Zap - you're dead" opponents or where the heroes face no real challenge, so the GM will design his game to fall in the middle. To some extent, a vulnerability to a common attack type may really be a plot facilitator - it's an easy explanation of how these mooks can actually be a threat to this extremely well defended opponent (just as giving every bank robber a chunk of Kryptonite creates a challenge for Superman). Will Mechanon silver-plate his robotic body so he can have a Silver attack that starts out 4 DC's above the usual campaign max and kill the vampire with one strike from ambush? Probably not - that won't make for a good game. Which brings me to the point - the only thing I'm saying is that I regard some complications the same way as buying back stats - if you buy back 1 SPD, you don't have a 10-point complication. You just get 10 points back. If you buy back any characteristic, it's the same. I just think that some complications in some cases should be treated the same way. Lucius has already noted the change in Senses adopted in 6e. This was an issue in prior editions when we looked at, say, a Daredevil character who got 25 points of disadvantages for Blind, then bought 35 points of enhanced senses, resulting in being slightly more perceptive than a standard character, but eroding 25 character points everyone else spent on other stuff. If there's a straight tradeoff, that makes it a bit easier - the character lacks sight but has exactly equivalent alternate senses, so why should he have any less points to spend than anyone else, for example. It would, as noted previously, be just as easy to limit, say, 2/3 of the Vampire's defenses to be ineffective against Silver and forego the vulnerability, though. Let's say he has 30 PD and ED, of which 18 are resistant, and we accept silver can target both PD and ED. So he limits 20 points of PD and ED, and 12 rDEF, and we give him a -1, since everyone knows to use silver against him. He saves 26 points, and he has 10/6 defenses against Silver. So a 12d6 SilverBlast will average 42 STUN, 12 BOD and pass 32 STUN and 2 BOD past his defenses, and a 4d6 Silver KA will average 14 and 28, passing 8 BOD and 18 STUN past his defenses. A 1 1/2x STUN and BOD vulnerability would be a 30 point Complication. So a 12d6 SilverBlast will average 63 STUN, 18 BOD and pass 33 STUN and 0 BOD past his defenses, and a 4d6 Silver KA will average 21 and 42, passing 3 BOD and 12 STUN past his defenses. The limited defenses are a bit more limiting than the Vulnerability, and they allow him more character points to spend in other areas. Maybe this is a better way to define a Vulnerability from a mechanical perspective - especially for a character with very high defenses. Is there another type of complication you allow to bypass the usual limit which could not be simulated by limitations or sellbacks? There is another approach. We could remove the ability to sell back anything. Blind returns to being a complication, but "Weak" becomes a 5 point Complication which reduces STR by 5, and "Slow" becomes a 10 point complication that reduces SPD by 1. No direct sellbacks at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems As for the "Vampire argument" - I will clarify: - Most people think of "common vulnerabilities" as a way of inviting death - so do my players, however - Most players are willing to accept "inviting death" if they know it is not treated the same way as let's say two social complications, which will always, in the mind of players I have played with, cause less trouble, and these disadvantages sometimes suit the characters very well - yet players avoid them fearing that it will actually cause death, just as they fear taking "very heavy" complications with fear of their character being destroyed by them (socially, psychologically etc.), That is what I've tried to underline (but probably failed). The reason the distinction was made was to encourage taking suitable but large complications, not try to hit the limit with small stuff which will certainly not come into play all at once or even in parts. Aside from the fact, that in my experience a lot of small limitations / disadvantages / complciations will inevitably suffer from diminishing returns. But if a player wanted it, and it would suit the character, I wouldn't say no - the rules were not created to force anyone to take large complications - it only counters the fact that until I've come up with it, noone even considered them an option - my old players and fresh ones alike. Edit: I can sum it up like this: players (again - those I've played with, maybe there are people who think differently) assess complications by thinking "can I deal with this somehow?". And usually don't pick complications that they think will overcome them (secret which upon reveal would get the character killed, and could not be buried deep in a graveyard, a very restrictive code of honor, complete nonviolence etc., cancer, etc.) unless that is the goal of the character. They will accept many complications if they can be dealt with somehow, even if it will be hard and will force the character to make hard choices. On the other hand, if they see that they are being rewared for such a "hard" complication, which includes the risk that it will lead to heroes demise, they are often willing to risk it (I'm a bit more powerful than all those mortals, so 1) maybe I'll manage, 2) it'll be worth it even if I don't). In terms of limitations - I think limiting defenses is not the way to go. "Not against silver" on the vampires natural defenses would cause several issues: - the vampire would be killed outright by a few silver attacks made by any non-mook NPC, - the power would have to be created differently (undead body has ED, PD, power def and mental def in it in this world), possibly by splitting it into two powers, but that issue is minor, - it would make no thematic sense, Another thing - he is hurt by silver. It's the only thing that causes pain to him - that's why he is vulnerable. He protects himself just to be able to "soak" as much of the damage as possible. This has a frightening effect. Limitation on power would not be able to model that. He is as resistant to silver as anyone - it's just the excruciating pain he feels when silver pierces his skin. Another types of disads that I would allow to follow this rule? Unluck would qualify in most cases - as for the rest, depends on the character, as I've said. A total, complete CvK might qualify quite often, but it depends on the character in question. Susceptibility will qualify more often than not if it is common, as would Dread ("psychological" (divine, magical curse?) complication preventing character from getting close to certain objects - like undead not being able to get close to a person who, with faith in its protection, holds a holy symbol), sometimes Dependency which may be felt during proloned combat (by prolonged I don't mean "five turns", I mean more like "two-three fights in a scope of 2 hours" might qualify (for example - biotics from Mass Effect that is dependent on a painmed injector, without which he suffers seizures), some instances of Enraged might be ok, as would many physical complications (ham fisted, hemophilia, being very fat, very skinny (as "negative" Knockback Resistance), weak body structure ("negative" Damage Negation). But we (me and my players) have most often applied this rules to Vulnerability and Susceptibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems I can see some merit to treating certain complications as "sellbacks". And there you go again, saying something I can agree with completely. This is one of the ideas I was still mulling over and unsure how to present. Lucius Alexander More palindromedaries please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems If you pick a character with a vulnerability to common attack (let's say piercing), and pick all complications to the limit, I will still give you points the for vulnerability, while I wouldn't give you more for a Social Complication. I think there may be a problem with this. If I'm in your game, this is going to effect how I put Complications on the character sheet. I put all the "soft" Complications like Hunted and DNPC on top. After maxing out on Complication Points, I add "hard" Complications like Unluck and Vulnerability. Even though they're "over the limit" you allow points for them. If I put those Complications at the top of the list, the ones at the bottom would be the "soft" Complications and you would not allow points for them. So of course I don't do it that way. Lucius Alexander Taking a palindromedary over the limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix240 Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems My prime example of an X Speaking for my own as player and gm, quite a bit. It gives a major bonus on Analyze rolls, has been used to identify characcters who were trying to disguise themselves, including giving major clues to a character's Secret ID in one case and in another was used to frame a character as someone emulated his signature style while committing crimes. So it can be a significant limitation. I can't speak for it always being used that way. Edit: oh and it gave away a villain group since they're fighting style was pretty rare and the PCs used it track down their sole known teacher and get some information from him. Anything can be a Disadvantage but I guess the GM has to be upfront and self aware of how much their willing to work to make something a disadvantage (or a Limitation. I really see OIF: Battle suit made into much of a Limitation. Others vary, of course). Ironically, this discussion seems like an argument for "pay as they come up" Disadvantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems If I'm in your game, this is going to effect how I put Complications on the character sheet. I put all the "soft" Complications like Hunted and DNPC on top. After maxing out on Complication Points, I add "hard" Complications like Unluck and Vulnerability. Even though they're "over the limit" you allow points for them. As always - this is not a hard - and - fast rule, nor is it foolproof. It always requires GM's judgement to apply it. That is why, by default, it is only applied to racial package deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems To add something about "the rule of being above complication limit" - I've never actually seen anyone try to abuse it. It's not a case of "hm, I need to take unluck or some common vulnerability to get some more points". There were only 4 instances of it ever being applied: - the first one happened when one of my players (there were 5 of them at that time) wanted to play a blind elf in dark fantasy campaign - I allowed blindness (worth -50 in GURPS) to "not count" into the disadvantage limit (-75 at that time, close to -45 in HERO) to allow him to still create a character whose only weakness wasn't the fact that he was blind - thus, a discussion was born and my and my players reached a consensus that it is good to sometimes allow such things, - the "crystal man" had vulnerability to crushing attacks, but it also "ate" almost all of his disadvantage limit - hence, he was allowed to take normal disads and still get points for being vulnerable to crushing attacks, - the "wizard gentleman", who had vowed never to hurt or even attack a woman and had "will never use it on a female") on all his "powers", yet needed a complication in a campaign with very low allowance (it was -50 points in GURPS, something close to -30 in HERO I think) - he also had few other disadvantages which were essential, thus, he was allowed to count his vow as "selling back his ability to act against females", - the vampire (both in GURPS and HERO right now) with his vulnerability to silver - few races in my current setting have vulnerabilities (or susceptibilities) to provide a reasonable explanation for why they havn't smashed the human race (how many times can you reuse the "they breed too slowly" cliche?). On the other hand, there was only one case of a player asking to apply the rule and me not allowing it - a space opera character who had two bionic arms, some bionic internal orans and both of his eyes were also bionic (shuttle accident) and wanted "vulnerability to electricity" not to count. But since the player took various abilities to prevent anything from happening to his implants and counter electrical attacks, I didn't agree. I proposed to reduce the value of the disadvantage on a pact that I will rarely attack him with electricity directly. He agreed and removed many powers which served the sole purpose of guarding him against energy attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodkins Odds Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems Looking at these four cases, there's only three different problems, here's how they affect HERO 6e using the RAW. A single complication is worth a large portion of the required complications limit, but the other complications the character needs would be over that limit. No problem, HERO's required complications limit isn't a hard cap, it's a soft floor. You need at least X points of complications or you have less points to spend, and no more than X points in a single complication nor more X points in a single category of complications count towards reaching this minimum. Exceeding the minimum does not give the character more points to spend. A template used on the character includes complications, but the player wants his character to have additional complications in excess of the required complications. No problem per se. The character can still get as many complications as he needs, but I could certainly see the argument for subtracting the complications from the cost of the template. A player took a complication, but then paid for enough abilities that the complication can never actually come up except in very contrived circumstances. There is really no reason for this to happen in 6e. Complications are clearly described as plot hooks and story movers, the amount of required complications are low enough that everyone should be able to come up with the minimum, complications that can never come up are explicitly disallowed, and the only thing you get for taking extra complications are the extra complications. If you didn't actually want this to come up then just don't by the complication, and if you did want it to come up but the complication hits harder than you wanted then you should either take a smaller complication, use limitations to get the effect you want, or the complication you want is simply to small too be worth points as a complication: either write it down as a 0 point complication or see if your GM allows quirks. Virtually, Bodkins Odds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems A single complication is worth a large portion of the required complications limit, but the other complications the character needs would be over that limit. No problem, HERO's required complications limit isn't a hard cap, it's a soft floor. You need at least X points of complications or you have less points to spend, and no more than X points in a single complication nor more X points in a single category of complications count towards reaching this minimum. Exceeding the minimum does not give the character more points to spend. Virtually, Bodkins Odds It bothers me that everyone thinks this is fine, but not if you turn it around. If I show up with a character with 450 pts of Assets (Characteristics, Skills, Powers, etc) in a game where the limit is 400, I don't expect to hear "That's okay, you can have another 50 pts of character Equity to spend." Nor "You can have those extra Powers, you just don't have to spend points on them." I expect "trim 50 points off that character." But if we have a limit of 100 for Liabilities (of which we have, oddly enough, only one category, Complications) and I take 150, it's fine to say the equivalent of either "That's okay, we'll just cut 50 pts from your character Equity" or "You can take those extra Complications, we just won't count them for points." Which perhaps just reinforces my earlier point: Everyone seems to know that in Hero, as it stands, our Liabilities are really not equal and opposite to our Assets. They aren't really measured on the same scale of value. It's like keeping half a set of books in dollars and the other half in dinars. Lucius Alexander Then again, there's no accounting for palindromedaries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems Neither me nor my players feel that way - that is probably a remnant of GURPS thinking, where some players actually think it's better not to have 25 points of disadvantages and making character with lower "active point total". HERO thinking is along the lines that only "Active Point total" matters, and complications only limit the "real point total" - if characters ever had that sort of thing. That is probably the reason why it's so hard for me to say why I think that sometimes a 5 point complication is just worth -5 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodkins Odds Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems The whole point of the change in terminology and amounts required from Disadvantages to Complications was that being liabilities is not their main purpose. They are meant to as roleplaying aids and plot hooks. Some complications are liabilities, and many limit your or your character's options in game, but that is merely the means by which they aid the roleplay. One doesn't, or is not intended to, take Susceptible to Unobtanium because one needs the points, one takes Susceptible to Unobtanium because one thinks dealing with that Vulnerability would be fun to roleplay, and one wants the GM to bring it up once every so many sessions. The reason that Character Points and points in complications are on two different scales is that they are measuring different kinds of things. Character Points are what your character can do and how he does it, Complications are things that help make the game interesting, the fact that some limitations help make the story interesting by limiting what your character can do and how he does it is purely coincidental. Character Points and Complication Points are not the same thing. They may have been the same thing in previous editions, but they are not the same thing in 6e. The penalty for being under the complication limit is a penalty for not buying as many story hooks as the GM wanted each character to have. Now it is possible to have too many Complications, or even too much of a single kind of complication, but that's a lot harder to do accidentally than it is to buy too much of something with character points. It was however easier to do with Disadvantages, since the higher minimum level and the fact that they did give you Character Points encouraged people to buy as many as possible. The new rules encourage you to buy only what your character needs, so the number of characters with complications above the cap tends to go down. If most of the characters have the minimum amount of complications ±10 points, then the guy who's thirty points over doesn't overwhelm the GM's ability to actually use these complications. Now, yes, an experienced GM can tell when a character has too many complications and can tell when someone is throwing one on just for extra points, but not everyone has access to an experienced GM. Especially if they're in a group that just started using HERO and doesn't have anyone experienced with it. And the less often the GM needs to deal with thrown on complications the more time he has to truly examine the rest of them. "Hey, this CvK is Common, did you really want to be pressured to kill every three or four sessions?" Virtually, Bodkins Odds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.