Disadvantages/Complication Systems

[Thane]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

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?"

Well, you are right. I havn't really thought about it that way. After many years spent in GURPS, where abusing disadvantages is generally a common practice (since they're always worth the same ammount of points no matter what, for example "Will never harm innocent beings or do anything that may put innocent beings in danger" is always worth -10 points, no matter what) I've just developed some practical attitude. For example, even in the campaign I converted to HERO, about 20% of disadvantages went away (Unusual Biochemistry (medicine for humans has weird effects on you), Restricted Diet (can only eat X) etc.). HERO does this better - I completely agree with the "story hook" justification and "penalty for not getting as much" - that is why I like complication system better than most disadvantage systems which assume a set point for point value.

It just requires some experience to know if something is / will really be a limitation or not. And, in addition to this, there are various group habbits that affect play (for example in my group social complications tend to be especially painful because of how the players do things and most things many GMs (so I think) would count as minor I will count as major complication because I know that players rarely ever do things without at least trying to work the social way). So I just know if something will be a complication or not the moment I see it.

 

On the other hand, X

But this is all a question of experience - I think Psychological Complication: Curiosity is a perfect example. How "curiosity" can be impairing and how much it's worth is often a subject of debate and everyone has his preferences.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.),

 

In my experience, this comes from gaming with GM's/groups who use complications/disadvantages to cripple, rather than challenge, the characters. "Why does no one ever take a Vulnerability in my games?" can often be answered with "Because, in your games, they will soon need a new character because you will use the vulnerability to slaughter the character". Similarly, if you use psych or social complications to cripple the character and make it no fun to play, the players will shy away from those complications. Use them to challenge the chaacters and enrich the game, and suddenly players want such complications.

 

Edit: I can sum it up like this: players (again - those I've played with' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

To my mind, everyone wants a character who contributes to the team and is successful. If, in your game, a given complication is effectively suicide or near-guaranteed character ineffectiveness, no one will take that complication. Does it make the character less, or no, fun to play? Then I will not take it. Just as I won't take "Homebody - will never leave home to seek out adventure". It would make my character very survivable, but it's not much fun having the rest of the group go on adventures while you watch and, perhaps, occasionally note that your character is having a soft boiled egg for breakfast back at his house.

 

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,

 

And he won't when he takes extra BOD from those attacks due to vulnerability? If his defenses are so high than even doubled BOD rarely, if ever, causes a problem, I suggest the complication doubling his BOD from such attacks is overvalued.

 

- the power would have to be created differently (undead body has ED' date=' PD, power def and mental def in it in this world), possibly by splitting it into two powers, but that issue is minor,[/quote']

 

Very minor

 

- it would make no thematic sense' date='[/quote']

 

Huh? Either approach is one that makes the character/creature more easily damaged by this type of attack. The mechanics don't set the theme.

 

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.

 

I'm not sure what differentiation you are making here. Perhaps he is only taking extra STUN damage (in which case, the limitation could just as easily be "not vs STUN from Silver attacks).

 

If the main impact of the vulnerability is to change the character's behaviour (ie he is careful to avoid silver attacks, he takes extra precautions to bolster his defenses against silver, he typically dodges such attacks), how is this markedly different from a character who fears silver attacks, and takes all the same preventative steps? If the difference is minimal, why would one be more disadvantageous than the other?

 

Another types of disads that I would allow to follow this rule? Unluck would qualify in most cases - as for the rest' date=' depends on the character, as I've said. A total, complete CvK [i']might [/i]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.

 

I see two issues here. One seems to be "should having more disadvantages allow you to have more points". That is as simple as increasing the maximum points - perhaps even eliminating the maximum - from disadvantages, with the expectation not everyone will maximize the points taken. You mention diminishing returns, but that is manageable by capping maximum points from any given type of disadvantage, rather than capping total points. If you really want to encourage high point value disadvantages, rather than smaller ones, cap the number of disadvantages in each type instead of the total points. Lots of options (including your case by case evaluation) can work.

 

The other is that you seem to feel some disadvantages are more damaging than their point values indicate, and others less. So change the point values to reflect their relative impact in your game. There's nothing wrong with saying "That disadvantage is not appropriate to this campaign, so it is not worth any points".

 

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.

 

An excellent example of the disadvantage's impact being very dependent on play style. If it won't be used in this game, it's an inappropriate disadvantages in this game.

 

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,

 

Sounds like the Daredevil Conundrum - the character doubtless spent a lot of points on abilities mitigating his blindness, the same issue which led to loss of senses becoming a sellback in 6e. Other possible answers - make the Disadvantage "character has radar sense/enhanced hearing/whatever instead of sight", and reduce the disadvantage points accordingly. In extreme cases, this would be the same as a sellback (no points for the disadvantage, but only pays the excess point cost for the other senses). The sellback probably looks cleaner, though. I might classify this as a rule that says "Reducing or removing an ability that everyone gets for free is a sellback".

 

- the "crystal man" had vulnerability to crushing attacks' date=' 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,[/quote']

 

Like the blindness, the "disadvantage cap" seems to be part of the problem here. I see limiting your defenses as a viable option, as discussed above. If the only answer is "but then he's TOO vulnerable", maybe the vulnerability is awarded TOO MANY points for its actual impact. Part of the problem is that, in most games, 2x damage from a given attack will often mean "knocked out if hit with this attack". If it's a common attack, the character should logically spend a lot of time unconscious (BOD vulnerability becomes almost an expectation of hospitalization, if not a fatality).

 

- the "wizard gentleman"' date=' 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",[/quote']

 

Still with that cap. A limitation - powers do not work on females (that is, this is so hard coded it can never be violated) could work.

 

- 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?).

 

Discussed already

 

On the other hand' date=' 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']

 

Seems similar to the Daredevil conundrum - take the disadvantage, then spend most, all or more than the points gained mitigating the impact of the disadvantage. Setting the two off seems like the best answer. In either approach, he's not really vulnerable to electrical attacks.

 

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."

 

Perhaps it is more applicable to say "the GM will use these Complications less to reflect the fact there are more of them". In some games, the GM might rub his hands with glee at being able to punish the character 50% more than the other characters, but I suggest players in such games will soon learn not to take extra complications. In others, the GM might well prohibit the excess complications - I could see these being taken by a spotlight hog to carve out more focus on his character, due to his greater incidence of plot hooks. In some, the GM might have the player reduce frequencies to reflect the fact that he will use each one less as he rotates between them. In others, he might well just do that, despite their frequency being greater on paper.

 

I rather suspect the GM would be more wary of a character with extra complications if the structure awarded, say, Hero Points each time a complication arose in play. There would certainly be other issues in such cases (eg. I'll invite my girlfriend DNPC to every plot hook function to maximize the odds of getting HP awards; "I'd like to kill him but I don't -do I get a HP for my CVK?"). Interestingly, that would probably reverse the debate over frequency, with players arguing "it's not that frequent" to get more opportunities for HP.

 

Which perhaps just reinforces my earlier point: Everyone seems to know that in Hero' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Some of that arises because there are differences that can't be simply removed. If the GM decides that, because you have extra complications, your Hunted doesn't show up as often, that nosy reporter isn't as diligent seeking out your secret ID and your DNPC stays home more, the player probably doesn't gripe about it (unless they would get more HP from it...). But if the GM routinely neutralizes the extra benefits of your 450 point character, chances are you will complain about that.

[Lucius]

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.

 

Then maybe Complications should be disconnected from Character Points completely?

 

That is, if characters are supposed to have 400 points, then every character has 400 points regardless of if they have a few Complications, lots of Complications, or no Complications.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Simplifying a palindromedary

[Lucius]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

Thanks for bringing this up

 

 

I rather suspect the GM would be more wary of a character with extra complications if the structure awarded, say, Hero Points each time a complication arose in play. There would certainly be other issues in such cases (eg. I'll invite my girlfriend DNPC to every plot hook function to maximize the odds of getting HP awards; "I'd like to kill him but I don't -do I get a HP for my CVK?"). Interestingly, that would probably reverse the debate over frequency, with players arguing "it's not that frequent" to get more opportunities for HP.

 

 

It's an issue I hadn't directly considered.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that even though Lucius stopped playing D&D regularly many years ago, he still sees "HP" and thinks "Hit Points."

[Lucius]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

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.

 

Virtually,

Bodkins Odds

 

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're talking about.

 

But it may connect to something else I don't understand: People who complain that in the previous edition, they had trouble coming up with enough Disadvantages to hit the limit.

 

But that limit was never mandatory and I don't know why people think, or thought, that it was. And it's STILL not mandatory, but I think the way the current edition is written, unlike the previous editions, that fact is harder to discern and if anything, there is MORE pressure now to hit the limit. It's just that the limit is lower.

 

I REALLY don't get "The new rules encourage you to buy only what your character needs" in terms of Complications. Maybe this is subjective, but to me it looks like the new rules encourage you to get a given set number of points in Complications at a given level of play - not more, not less, but that exact number, regardless of what your character needs.

 

The old rules set a maximum limit but it was more obvious that you could be below that maximum. If anything, the old rules are far better at "encouraging you to buy only what your character needs."

 

In fact, looking at what you have written, you say (emphasis added)

 

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.

 

The actual minimum amount of Complications is zero, but I don't think that's what you mean.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Distinctive Features: Palindromedary

[Thane]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

In my experience, this comes from gaming with GM's/groups who use complications/disadvantages to cripple, rather than challenge, the characters. "Why does no one ever take a Vulnerability in my games?" can often be answered with "Because, in your games, they will soon need a new character because you will use the vulnerability to slaughter the character". Similarly, if you use psych or social complications to cripple the character and make it no fun to play, the players will shy away from those complications. Use them to challenge the chaacters and enrich the game, and suddenly players want such complications.

Can't agree with this statement, although it's quite logical. What if you have players who never wanted such disadvantages because they think that they cripple rather than challenge? I didn't really have much opprotunity to prove that a "very heavy" disadvantage isn't crippling (though certainly worth the cost). Even the fact that the characters who actually did have such disadvantages were never killed, slaughtered, maimed, or even crippled by having them doesn't change the way players I know view this sort of stuff. A character who has such a complication (e.g. vulnerability to silver) is regarded by the player who plays him as his most fun, best character he created. Still, when he plays any other character, he doesn't pick any "heavy" disadvantages because he thinks they are "too much for him to have fun with his character" and would pick them only if he really needed to.

But it might not be the GM (GMs) he played with, but the system. I had spent an hour explaining to him that how "common" silver is as a vulnerability has nothing to do with how many people actually use silver weapons and how rare they are in the setting, but how rare they appear in adventures. In GURPS, his vulnerability was uncommon (the top was very common, then common, uncommon and rare, unlike HERO scale), and now I say I think it should be common since everyone who fights him prepared uses it against him. He was quite surprised HERO takes this into account. So maybe that's the case - all players I know really only played GURPS aside from systems where there are no disadvantages at all.

 

To my mind, everyone wants a character who contributes to the team and is successful. If, in your game, a given complication is effectively suicide or near-guaranteed character ineffectiveness, no one will take that complication.

I don't think that is the case. I can't really imagine any complication which would, under any GM, work even remotely like this.

 

And he won't when he takes extra BOD from those attacks due to vulnerability? If his defenses are so high than even doubled BOD rarely, if ever, causes a problem, I suggest the complication doubling his BOD from such attacks is overvalued. (...)

 

I'm not sure what differentiation you are making here. Perhaps he is only taking extra STUN damage (in which case, the limitation could just as easily be "not vs STUN from Silver attacks).

To be honest, that is actually a great idea, much better than the vulnerability and I've never thought about that. Not sure how much would this be worth as a limitation to rPD, but this might actually work better, since he does take extra STUN, not extra BODY. And the ammount of stun he takes from 3-4 "standard opponents" who happen to somehow hit him with silver bullets would be roughly the same as one silver bullet from a powerful opponent. His DCV isn't actually very high - he has higher defenses.

 

I see two issues here. One seems to be "should having more disadvantages allow you to have more points". That is as simple as increasing the maximum points - perhaps even eliminating the maximum - from disadvantages, with the expectation not everyone will maximize the points taken. You mention diminishing returns, but that is manageable by capping maximum points from any given type of disadvantage, rather than capping total points. If you really want to encourage high point value disadvantages, rather than smaller ones, cap the number of disadvantages in each type instead of the total points. Lots of options (including your case by case evaluation) can work.

To say the truth - I'm using my "old" knowledge wherever I can to be able to adjudicate things without putting my campaigns on hiatus to learn the new system. The fact I'm not keen on the options I havn't tested in play (limiting "total" of certain complications seems somewhat risky to me) may be old habbits showing up.

 

The other is that you seem to feel some disadvantages are more damaging than their point values indicate, and others less. So change the point values to reflect their relative impact in your game. There's nothing wrong with saying "That disadvantage is not appropriate to this campaign, so it is not worth any points".

Guidlines provided by HERO suit my needs perfectly. They are, by default, generic. If I think a disadvantage in a certain, specific campaign will have a stronger impact than the player suspects, I can just switch it from minor to major etc. I don't have to reprice it. This had to be done in GURPS, which was why my players hated creating characters there - it couldn't be done with the GM no matter what you did and how hard you tried. If "fat" is -5 points, then only the GM can say it's worth less or more in a specific campaign, even if the player is 100% positive that it shouldn't be worth -5, but -7 or whatever.

 

Sounds like the Daredevil Conundrum - the character doubtless spent a lot of points on abilities mitigating his blindness, the same issue which led to loss of senses becoming a sellback in 6e. (...)

Actually, he didn't. It wasn't an action-heavy type of campaign.

 

Like the blindness, the "disadvantage cap" seems to be part of the problem here. I see limiting your defenses as a viable option, as discussed above. If the only answer is "but then he's TOO vulnerable", maybe the vulnerability is awarded TOO MANY points for its actual impact. Part of the problem is that, in most games, 2x damage from a given attack will often mean "knocked out if hit with this attack". If it's a common attack, the character should logically spend a lot of time unconscious (BOD vulnerability becomes almost an expectation of hospitalization, if not a fatality).

I like the idea of "not against", and the "no stun against" is great indeed (though you have to tell me how much it's worth as a limitation to resistant defense). The "crystal guy" was created in GURPS, so there was no "not against" allowed, and the vulnerability was the only option. And the reason BOD vulnerability = expecatation of hospitalization, if not a fatality is probably why players don't like it even if they would suit their characters perfectly. This is not a GM or play case - it just has this expectation built in, while you can say "I'll manage" in case of almost all other disads.

 

Some of that arises because there are differences that can't be simply removed. If the GM decides that, because you have extra complications, your Hunted doesn't show up as often, that nosy reporter isn't as diligent seeking out your secret ID and your DNPC stays home more, the player probably doesn't gripe about it (unless they would get more HP from it...). But if the GM routinely neutralizes the extra benefits of your 450 point character, chances are you will complain about that.

In my cases, the players seem happy - the one with "less" total points is happy his life isn't so complicated and that he isn't "as screwed" as the other, as he would himself say. He even likes to deal with complications others have, not his own - that's just how he likes it. He doesn't think about his character as "less powerful" because he doesn't have 20 or 30 points more and 20 or 30 complication points more. The other player is just happy to actually be somewhat "more resourceful" than his mortal friend is, at the cost of his unlife being fun, as he calls it. He likes to be on the edge more often than not. Noone ever complained. Before our third player left the town to study, he created as "low-powered" characters as possible, with as few complications as he could, because he liked "side kick" role in campaigns and he truly enjoyed it. He often asked to give him less points to start with so that he can play his role. On the other hand, he hated disadvantages - he didn't want the attention being focused on his character or his problems too much or too often.

 

Edit: as for what Lucius said - I think "trying to hit the complication limit" is somewhat naturally connected to the fact that picking complications directly influences how much points the character has, while only few of them actually directly impair him - most complications don't work directly, they hinder you in various other ways - stuff happens that would happen either way, with the complications or without it - that is how most people I know view disadvantages. My favourite disadvantage is Hunted (Enemy in GURPS), which I had never allowed in my campaigns. I think the idea you get a complication (points) for the fact that you already made yourself an enemy doesn't really change anything. Characters will have enemies, will fight with people less powerful, as powerful or more powerful, who will not only try to kill them, but will also make attempts to ruin their life. What does "hunted" do? It gives you such enemy before the start of the game. After that, you don't get any points for enemies. What does it change? During the first adventures, it influences play. Later? Nothing. There is no real difference if Mr. Enemy I or Mr. Enemy-we-made-during play III shows up. Many people I've talked to about this seem to apply the same logic to DNPCs, but I regard DNPC as a disadvantage because they have to be taken into account even if nothing bad is happening right now - protecting them, taking steps to make them safe always requires effort. The same can be said for any NPC which is important, but while DNPC is a constant, such NPCs change frequently, depending on the storyline.

Lucius has a point in "disconnecting disads from the pool", but I think this would result in completely reversing the tendencies - where we had many complications before, we would have the bare minimum (or even some players who shamelessly get no complications at all since it doesn't matter for points) and nothing else.

[Thane]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

On the other hand, I know how Hunted can work and how it can hinder characters (especially in short campaigns, in which, unlike what I usually GM, Hunted can be a serious issue throughout the campaign, not just a very small part of it) - I just don't like it, and I'm not alone in this in my group. Maybe if our campaigns didn't last years I would look at things differently.

I think it all depends on some sort of balance between encouraging players to take complications and not making the complications dominate the character, but allow for fun and heroic actions. I'm eagerly awaiting how Lucius will solve the issue in his games, maybe I can learn something.

[Christopher]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

Hunted can mean a lot more than "enemy shows up and you fight" or "normal, no-name enemy get's replaced by your nemesis" (wich may know your weaknesses - very dangerous in a team).

 

It can be modelled in a lot of more subtle ways (somtimes you don't even know right out of hand it was your nemsis at work):

Your nemesis buys your DNCP's company, and he looses his job. Neither your nemesis knows the connection to you, nor do you know the connection to him. The problems you will face will seem like they come from the DNCP.

But later, perhaps through something your DNCP noted about the new boss, you get the connection between your DNCP's unemployment, the Nemsises Minion and thus your Nemesis Masterplan.

[Christopher]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

About the general thing of asigning flat rules like "Everyone get's 400/75 Points builds" (and all other caps):

They primarily aim to balance the characters on a rules perspective. The adventure might be no problem for the 500 point character, but neigh impossible to survive for the 300 point guy. Having everybody build their Heroes on equal points - or at least having them less complications for fewer points- is the best way to ensure this in the average campaign.

 

When you can tailor it for your team without the adventures feeling like a railroad plot, then these guidelines are nothing for you and your currunt players of course.

 

Personally I prefer to just having the 400/75 approach. Powerfull, but you still can't get anythign you want right from the start and makes certain everyone is on the roughly same level.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

Can't agree with this statement' date=' although it's quite logical. What if you have players who never wanted such disadvantages because they think that they cripple rather than challenge? I didn't really have much opprotunity to prove that a "very heavy" disadvantage isn't crippling (though certainly worth the cost). Even the fact that the characters who actually [i']did [/i]have such disadvantages were never killed, slaughtered, maimed, or even crippled by having them doesn't change the way players I know view this sort of stuff. A character who has such a complication (e.g. vulnerability to silver) is regarded by the player who plays him as his most fun, best character he created. Still, when he plays any other character, he doesn't pick any "heavy" disadvantages because he thinks they are "too much for him to have fun with his character" and would pick them only if he really needed to.

But it might not be the GM (GMs) he played with, but the system. I had spent an hour explaining to him that how "common" silver is as a vulnerability has nothing to do with how many people actually use silver weapons and how rare they are in the setting, but how rare they appear in adventures. In GURPS, his vulnerability was uncommon (the top was very common, then common, uncommon and rare, unlike HERO scale), and now I say I think it should be common since everyone who fights him prepared uses it against him. He was quite surprised HERO takes this into account. So maybe that's the case - all players I know really only played GURPS aside from systems where there are no disadvantages at all.

 

The "common/uncommon" issue strikes me simply as a system interpretation. If I get points based on my vulnerability being very rare, but it becomes omnipresent in game, then I did not receive fair points for that complication. As to some players not wanting to take certain disadvantages, I don't see that being a lot different from some players not wanting to play certain character types. I don't see a compelling need to have a player who prefers numerous small complications be persuaded to take a few, more frequent and higher impact, complications any more than I feel a need to force the guy who always plays a close quarters tough melee combatant to run a fragile sniper this time.

 

I don't think that is the case. I can't really imagine any complication which would' date=' under any GM, work even remotely like this.[/quote']

 

I'd say players viewing certain complications as "inviting death" indicates many others can imagine this a lot more readily.

 

To be honest' date=' that is actually a great idea, much better than the vulnerability and I've never thought about that. Not sure how much would this be worth as a limitation to rPD, but [i']this [/i]might actually work better, since he does take extra STUN, not extra BODY. And the amount of stun he takes from 3-4 "standard opponents" who happen to somehow hit him with silver bullets would be roughly the same as one silver bullet from a powerful opponent. His DCV isn't actually very high - he has higher defenses.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************

Guidlines provided by HERO suit my needs perfectly. They are, by default, generic. If I think a disadvantage in a certain, specific campaign will have a stronger impact than the player suspects, I can just switch it from minor to major etc. I don't have to reprice it. This had to be done in GURPS, which was why my players hated creating characters there - it couldn't be done with the GM no matter what you did and how hard you tried. If "fat" is -5 points, then only the GM can say it's worth less or more in a specific campaign, even if the player is 100% positive that it shouldn't be worth -5, but -7 or whatever.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************

I like the idea of "not against", and the "no stun against" is great indeed (though you have to tell me how much it's worth as a limitation to resistant defense). The "crystal guy" was created in GURPS, so there was no "not against" allowed, and the vulnerability was the only option. And the reason BOD vulnerability = expecatation of hospitalization, if not a fatality is probably why players don't like it even if they would suit their characters perfectly. This is not a GM or play case - it just has this expectation built in, while you can say "I'll manage" in case of almost all other disads.

 

"How much is it worth" would depend on the frequency of the attack. I find most Hero default limitations to defenses are undervalued (eg. "only vs fire" being priced at -1/2 suggests that 2/3 of the energy attacks the character has to deal with are fire-based). If half the physical attacks the Vampire suffers are Silver, I would say the limitation should be -1. If the limitation applies to STUN damage only, I would say a slightly lower limitation would be appropriate, maybe -3/4 (you take STUN a lot more often than you take BOD). Mind you, I think I would not allow that limitation on the Resistant advantage, since that has no effect against STUN damage anyway.

 

In my cases' date=' the players seem happy - the one with "less" total points is happy his life isn't so complicated and that he isn't "as screwed" as the other, as he would himself say. He even likes to deal with complications [i']others [/i]have, not his own - that's just how he likes it. He doesn't think about his character as "less powerful" because he doesn't have 20 or 30 points more and 20 or 30 complication points more. The other player is just happy to actually be somewhat "more resourceful" than his mortal friend is, at the cost of his unlife being fun, as he calls it. He likes to be on the edge more often than not. Noone ever complained. Before our third player left the town to study, he created as "low-powered" characters as possible, with as few complications as he could, because he liked "side kick" role in campaigns and he truly enjoyed it. He often asked to give him less points to start with so that he can play his role. On the other hand, he hated disadvantages - he didn't want the attention being focused on his character or his problems too much or too often.

 

So how would this be any different if you set maximum complications at 150, the Vampire took the full 150 (and had, say, a 475 point character), the Sniper took 75 (and a 400 point character) and the Sidekick took 25 (and a 350 point character)? Do they feel obliged to take the maximum complications for some reason? They aren't required to.

 

Edit: as for what Lucius said - I think "trying to hit the complication limit" is somewhat naturally connected to the fact that picking complications directly influences how much points the character has, while only few of them actually directly impair him - most complications don't work directly, they hinder you in various other ways - stuff happens that would happen either way, with the complications or without it - that is how most people I know view disadvantages. My favourite disadvantage is Hunted (Enemy in GURPS), which I had never allowed in my campaigns. I think the idea you get a complication (points) for the fact that you already made yourself an enemy doesn't really change anything. Characters will have enemies, will fight with people less powerful, as powerful or more powerful, who will not only try to kill them, but will also make attempts to ruin their life. What does "hunted" do? It gives you such enemy before the start of the game. After that, you don't get any points for enemies. What does it change? During the first adventures, it influences play. Later? Nothing. There is no real difference if Mr. Enemy I or Mr. Enemy-we-made-during play III shows up. Many people I've talked to about this seem to apply the same logic to DNPCs, but I regard DNPC as a disadvantage because they have to be taken into account even if nothing bad is happening right now - protecting them, taking steps to make them safe always requires effort. The same can be said for any NPC which is important, but while DNPC is a constant, such NPCs change frequently, depending on the storyline.

Lucius has a point in "disconnecting disads from the pool", but I think this would result in completely reversing the tendencies - where we had many complications before, we would have the bare minimum (or even some players who shamelessly get no complications at all since it doesn't matter for points) and nothing else.

 

On the other hand, I know how Hunted can work and how it can hinder characters (especially in short campaigns, in which, unlike what I usually GM, Hunted can be a serious issue throughout the campaign, not just a very small part of it) - I just don't like it, and I'm not alone in this in my group. Maybe if our campaigns didn't last years I would look at things differently.

I think it all depends on some sort of balance between encouraging players to take complications and not making the complications dominate the character, but allow for fun and heroic actions. I'm eagerly awaiting how Lucius will solve the issue in his games, maybe I can learn something.

 

As indicated above, there's some merit to the theory that, if you had no Hunteds, you would still have enemies and conflict, and a lack of DNPC's wouldn't mean a lack of supporting cast including bystanders to rescue. One result of the 6e reduction to complication points in Supers games seems to have been a reduced incidence of Hunted's, at least in our games. In 5e, we typically saw a couple of Hunteds (normally "mystery hunteds" the GM could weave into the game), where now we only see Hunteds if they are much closer linked to the character in some way. I think a Hunted should be used outside the scope of the scenario itself to cause trouble for the Hunted fellow. If Han Solo hadn't been hunted by Jabba, his carbonite-encased form would likely still have been on Cloud City, and easily rescued. This comes back, I think, to the same issue - to be worth points, the Hunted needs to create a disadvantage which would not otherwise be present.

 

Viewing complications as plot hooks and means of directing the game to certain types of challenges rather than a means to make the character and player suffer for getting those extra points is a much better approach overall, IMO. Not "I'll work around/weasel out of these complications" but "I embrace these complications because they round out my character, and add to the fun of the game". In some cases, I find complications frustrate players who want to treat characters as pawns on a chessboard, always making the best tactical decision, treating the game as something you win or lose. Role players often find it much easier to get inside the heads of their characters, and don't so much select complications as write down the drawbacks to the characters they want to play.

 

In some games, if I decide my character is a happy go lucky swashbuckler, and that's not the game style the GM envisioned, my character gets hospitalized because the chandeliers he keeps trying to swing from are poorly anchored. When it's on my character sheet, the GM gets advance warning, and can either decide to modify the environment to play up this aspect of the character, or can sit me down and tel me this isn't the desired tone for the game, so perhaps I should save this character for a different game and create something more suitable to the game he plans on running now.

[Christopher]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

"How much is it worth" would depend on the frequency of the attack. I find most Hero default limitations to defenses are undervalued (eg. "only vs fire" being priced at -1/2 suggests that 2/3 of the energy attacks the character has to deal with are fire-based). If half the physical attacks the Vampire suffers are Silver' date=' I would say the limitation should be -1. If the limitation applies to STUN damage only, I would say a slightly lower limitation would be appropriate, maybe -3/4 (you take STUN a lot more often than you take BOD). Mind you, I think I would not allow that limitation on the Resistant advantage, since that has no effect against STUN damage anyway.[/quote']

Well, we had those dicussions about how much "only vs SFX" is worth half a dozen times since I joined the forum, and I think it depends on what scale you see them apply:

Hugh goes for "2/3 of every battle" for limitations, where as I would say "In 2/3 of every Game Session/Adventure" they come into play. And this has not to be in any figth even then - even being able to rescue that girl out of the burning house with less damage suffered/time used up (because you went the direct way) would still count.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

Well, we had those dicussions about how much "only vs SFX" is worth half a dozen times since I joined the forum, and I think it depends on what scale you see them apply:

Hugh goes for "2/3 of every battle" for limitations, where as I would say "In 2/3 of every Game Session/Adventure" they come into play. And this has not to be in any figth even then - even being able to rescue that girl out of the burning house with less damage suffered/time used up (because you went the direct way) would still count.

 

Until the electrical wire falls on him, of course. Or the fire is in a chemical factory. To me, there has to be a sufficient discount to the price of the defenses to justify losing all the other things you would get for ditching the limitation. If I have to pay 7 points for +10 ED only vs Fire, why not shell out the extra 3 points for +10 ED vs Everything But Fire?

 

But I agree we've been over this a number of times. For Thane, the question simply becomes what he considers a reasonable limitation to be, given the comparative frequency of silver attacks (which the defenses won't affect) and non-silver attacks against which his full PD will apply, in his game world.

[Thane]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

Thank you very much for explanation with "not vs stun from X" - I now know how to price it correctly. If I'll have some issues, I'll look through the boards.

 

As for Hunted - well, I've been discussing such disadvantages a lot (whatever they were called in the system) with many people and I think it's a matter of taste. Obviously, I agree with Christopher, I've also said that Hunted doesn't have to want to kill/maim/seriously injure. He can also try to ruin characters life, career or whatever. He can want him imprisoned in carbonite, he may want to get his girl / boy, all that. Can't a normal enemy aquired in play want that? I just can't envision myself thinking "hm, so the PCs, after what they had done, are now in conflict with these people, because they ruined their business, but they are a guild of blacksmiths (company, whatever), so they will not pursue them directly - they will try various other methods, like maybe hmm.. blackmail them, maybe ruin their reputation, name, try to get the authorities after them? That would be good! Wait, no, they can't - that level of hard feelings is for Hunteds only - if they try this or that, they will behave the same way Hunteds do, and then, what would justify the point bargain?". No, I think the level of animosity between PCs and their enemies cannot be influenced by stats, but by actions. If they make someone their sworn enemy who wants to kill them and ride with their corpses behind his horse halfway through the countryside, it will not be "scaled" or influenced by ammount/type/worth of Hunteds. It's just the way I see things. I can scale what issues DNPCs cause - not enemies.

The only difference I can see is that a GM could throw a Hunted in addition to normal enemies. So you angered Syndicate X in play? Well, since Syndicate Y also wants you dead / maimed / seriously injured / your name destroyed / your loved ones kidnaped or killed / your reputation ruined / see you behind bars / whatever, they could join forces. Syndicate Y wouldn't be interested in your friends - they don't give a damn about them. They want your head. But how often can this happen to still be interesting and not "oh well, you are working with Syndicate Y, hi guys, what a surprise that you once again join forces with our enemies.... don't you get tired or something?"?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

They want your head. But how often can this happen to still be interesting and not "oh well' date=' you are working with Syndicate Y, hi guys, what a surprise that you [i']once again [/i]join forces with our enemies.... don't you get tired or something?"?

 

This is an issue for many probably most, disadvantages.

 

"Oh, Penny Paine is tied to the railroad tracks by the villain...AGAIN!"

 

"What a surprise - Captain Honorable has given his word to someone and AGAIN it comes back to bite us in the butt"

 

"And RIGHT ON SCHEDULE here comes the guy whose attack you're Vulnerable to."

 

"ANOTHER group of bank robbers who just happen to have acquired a chunk of Red Argonite - how many does that make this week?"

 

Or, dare I say. "With all these guys attacking us with silver weapons, what's happening to the market price of silver?"

[Christopher]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

The only difference I can see is that a GM could throw a Hunted in addition to normal enemies. So you angered Syndicate X in play? Well' date=' since Syndicate Y also wants you dead / maimed / seriously injured / your name destroyed / your loved ones kidnaped or killed / your reputation ruined / see you behind bars / whatever, they [i']could [/i]join forces. Syndicate Y wouldn't be interested in your friends - they don't give a damn about them. They want your head. But how often can this happen to still be interesting and not "oh well, you are working with Syndicate Y, hi guys, what a surprise that you once again join forces with our enemies.... don't you get tired or something?"?

Like I said: Replace a non-name enemy of equal point value with a nemesis. Nemesy tend to have better knowledge of the hero, so even one can improve the overall effectiveness of a team by giving his allies tips. Or maybe even let the players enemys form a "Brotherhood of Evil" agianst their "Justice League".

 

About aquiring Hunteds ingame: That possibiltiy is part of the rules. You can either go a "no rewards, it's just the danger of adventuring" or a "change complications" approach with those additional hunteds. Gain one hunted for 5, lower how often another one shows up.

[Greywind]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

Try Superman. Considering the number of plots Luthor has come up with specifically targeting Supes, Lex could be considered one of his Hunteds, whereas others just happen to be recognized enemies of Superman.

 

With the Flash, instead of all the different that might be listed as a Hunted, he would actually have a Hunted from his Rogue's Gallery, thus allowing the disad to be filled and allowing the GM a variety of challenges for the player.

 

Hunteds tend to be a group or individual who believes they have cause to actively interfere with a character. Hunteds also can evolve. There was a 3rd Ed example as I recall that explained how a character's Hunted changed from a horde of ninjas, all of whom believed they were really the hero. As the numbers were reduced, the few that were still around became more experienced and better at what they were doing. Hunted changed. Points stayed the same.

[Lucius]

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems

 

But if we have a limit of 100 for Liabilities (of which we have, oddly enough, only one category, Complications)

 

I don't know why I said this. I know it's not true. While we do have several categories of Assets (Characteristics, Skills, Talents, Perks, and Powers) we have two categories of Liabilities: Complications, and Sellbacks.

 

I can see some merit to treating certain complications as "sellbacks".

 

So can I. Unluck I consider a classic example - it is precisely equal and opposite to Luck. Vulnerabilities and Susceptibilities I would also include. I consider them "Negative Powers" of a sort.

 

But as for the kind of Complication that is a plot hook or plot complication, I say let's disconnect them from point totals - totally. No matter how many you take, it doesn't give you more points. If you don't take any, you don't lose points. If the person running the game thinks it necessary, they can be mandated, i.e. you have to have a minimum number of them. They should count for possible extra XP for role playing or be a possible source of Heroic Action Points or some similar system of brownie points or "bennies" but they're not measured for negative points.

 

While we're at it, many Perks could also be taken off the books and made into a "positive" version of plot complications. After all, a lot of these items are arguably neither good or bad, or both - if you assume for example that a contact is as likely to ask for help as to be available to help, that increasing rank in an organization is matched with increasing responsibility, that being watched by law enforcement means you have to watch your step but could also mean they are there to bail you out if you get in trouble over your head, etc.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

contact: Palindromedary