Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things?

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

In the more appropriate context' date=' if you're not willing to hurt someone, maybe dressing up in a costume and jumping into the middle of potentially violent situations and throwing around superpowers probably isn't the best of choices. Leave dealing with the costumed nutcases to the 'professionals' (whoever that might be)...[/quote']

 

Bolding mine. Just how inappropriate is it then to put on a costume and intervene in violent situations while throwing around superpowers in a superheroes campaign!?! Superheroes get that trope because it isn't about your powers but what you do with them. Forbidding CvK in a superheroes campaign is like banning the wear of colorful costumes or insisting that every now and then you're gonna find someone who needs killing and it makes so much more sense to plan for that one occasion than it does to plan for every more likely event you are certain to encounter. If it's not just the one occurrence, I'd suspect you really believed that "shooting a few out of hand would teach the rest better manners" or some other socially repugnant idea.

 

CvK in a military campaign? Less appropriate unless you want your stories to revolve around a medical unit and its crew comprised of conscientious objectors.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

There is a point to be made there. How often' date=' in a game, do your PCs encounter enemies whose defenses are so low that there is actually a risk of Body damage being done, outside of 'bait and switch' scenarios where you have an opponent who looks like a credible threat but isn't, or arguably worse, the 'Gold' team scenario from a very bad Adventurer's Club article where you have enemies with 20 DC attacks, but 4 PDs and the inexplicable Phys Lim 'Takes Body from Ego Attacks'? Ideally, I think, in a game where someone has a CvK, this should happen times other than just when laying a trap, and you should tell the players up front that they cannot assume that all enemies will be capable of taking 12-14 dice normal (or whatever your upper PC damage range is) without taking Body damage. I've been in games where my 20pt CvK didn't matter much because every-single-enemy had at least 25 defenses, at least 20 Resistant, including agents. Unless I was tripping a Vulnerability and rolled crazy, or was applying an upper-end Killing attack, there was zip risk of dealing Body damage.[/quote']

 

Gilt Complex was the team

 

And your last sentence I believe is the point the anti-cvk crowd is trying to make. Why get 20 pts for a Disad/Complication that doesn't directly affect your character? And I can't really disagree.

 

My counter to that is that the "Kill this guy or Don't" scenario isn't the only way that can affect a character in a role playing sense. Be it sacrificing a tactical advantage to establish your foe's relative vulnerability, choice or powers/weapons/maneuvers, or what have you. Since Disads/Complications are supposed to be Role Playing aids, I don't think there's a universal "this is what you get for your 20 pts."

 

I think the GM and player have to set up what effect this kind of thing has on the campaign/character design.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Gilt Complex

 

Thanks, I couldn't remember the team name/scenario name. Always thought that was some of the worst advice I'd ever seen ...

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Thanks' date=' I couldn't remember the team name/scenario name. Always thought that was some of the worst advice I'd ever seen ...[/quote']

 

Well it was one of the ways to give a "actions have consequences" lesson.

Honestly, there's a lot more made of enforcing genre rules for Supers Games than any other genre, IMO.

Apparently the assumption is that Gamers never leave the "Kill them and take their stuff" mode regardless of genre.

 

I'm sure there are players like that (I've played with them in fact) but it can get pretty heavy handed.

 

I've actually had to tell someone, "No you don't attack the police officers questioning you, you're a hero."

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Gilt Complex was the team

 

And your last sentence I believe is the point the anti-cvk crowd is trying to make. Why get 20 pts for a Disad/Complication that doesn't directly affect your character? And I can't really disagree.

 

My counter to that is that the "Kill this guy or Don't" scenario isn't the only way that can affect a character in a role playing sense. Be it sacrificing a tactical advantage to establish your foe's relative vulnerability, choice or powers/weapons/maneuvers, or what have you. Since Disads/Complications are supposed to be Role Playing aids, I don't think there's a universal "this is what you get for your 20 pts."

 

I think the GM and player have to set up what effect this kind of thing has on the campaign/character design.

 

Thanks' date=' I couldn't remember the team name/scenario name. Always thought that was some of the worst advice I'd ever seen ...[/quote']

 

Gilt Complex. NOW I remember! The same guy I posted this link about also ran that scenario, despite the fact that killing NPCs was something we never did. Until then.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

why should he?

 

IMO, he violated a major Psych lim without any real repercussions. I would have at least made him reduce it and make uo the points or get another Limitation worth the difference. But its issues like this that have pushed me towards just dropping CvK period. Psychological issues that just go away when they actually come up have become a pet peesve of mine over the years though, too many players just trying to weasel out of the Limitations they voluntarily took. I've got a good group now though.

[Tom]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Bolding mine. Just how inappropriate is it then to put on a costume and intervene in violent situations while throwing around superpowers in a superheroes campaign!?! Superheroes get that trope because it isn't about your powers but what you do with them. Forbidding CvK in a superheroes campaign is like banning the wear of colorful costumes or insisting that every now and then you're gonna find someone who needs killing and it makes so much more sense to plan for that one occasion than it does to plan for every more likely event you are certain to encounter. If it's not just the one occurrence, I'd suspect you really believed that "shooting a few out of hand would teach the rest better manners" or some other socially repugnant idea.

 

CvK in a military campaign? Less appropriate unless you want your stories to revolve around a medical unit and its crew comprised of conscientious objectors.

 

If you're intelligent enough to recognize that you're deliberately placing yourself in situations where you will be using abilities that can cause lethal harm, and you are unwilling to place the lives of others in jeopardy, then you have no business deliberately being in that situation.

 

If you're playing a game where nobody really gets hurt, there's no point in a CvK because nobody will ever die. I have no problem with that kind of game, and have run and played in them. Taking a CvK is cheesy though.

 

If you're in a more 'realistic' game, any time you've got a superbattle going, there's going to be good odds somebody is going to get hurt and/or killed. Stuff gets blowed up. Buildings get smashed and trashed. Cars get tossed about willy-nilly (sometimes while still occupied). And those mega-super-power blasts? Any shot that misses Dr Megasuperinvulnerable is going to hit something -- and if it's Muffy walking her toy poodle, both are going to vanish in a poof of brightly glowing vapor. Just how long can you reasonably expect a 'hero' with a CvK to continue donning tights knowing nearly any battle against evil is going to result in blood on the ground -- and that they are liable to be at least partially (if not directly) responsible for some of it?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

IMO' date=' he violated a major Psych lim without any real repercussions. I would have at least made him reduce it and make uo the points or get another Limitation worth the difference. But its issues like this that have pushed me towards just dropping CvK period. Psychological issues that just go away when they actually come up have become a pet peesve of mine over the years though, too many players just trying to weasel out of the Limitations they voluntarily took. I've got a good group now though.[/quote']

 

 

Could you give me an example of a psych lim that you think was well played then? As I mentioned the Character was traumatized afterwards (But I don't think he changed his stance on killing.) Also that was the only example in which said character went against his code, you have no idea (nor do I for that matter) how many times it came up. Just the one example when he overrode his beliefsWhat would have been an appropriate consequence for saving the universe?

 

Perhaps I'm not doing the situation justice in my telling. Of course reading the Disad in 5e Revised states the difference:

A Physical Limitation is something a character Can't do. A psychological Limitation is something a character Won't Do. Psych Lims can be overcome temporarily with Ego Rolls.

 

The chart accompanying gives Total as "Ego Roll - 5"

 

Would you be upset that a character with a fear of spiders overcame that to save the day? They are still afraid of spiders but they acted rather than ran.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

As a GM, I look for 'red flags' in every character's list of disadvantages/complications. "Casual killer" is a big one, as others have pointed out, but at the other end of the scale, I view any "Total" Psychological complication as the equivalent of a "Stop Sign" power, if not worse. It indicates a character who's going to cause problems. "Total" psych lims, when role-played as such, tend to result in characters who behave like they're clinically insane. They've got a hang-up so severe they're going to obsess over it, to the point of harassing and obstructing other characters, behaving completely irrationally and making things difficult.

 

I just try to avoid "Total" psych lims altogether, including a Total CvK of any kind, when I'm GM-ing.

 

What I really dread is the character who writes up a Psych lim as "Moderate" but then proceeds to role-play it as a "Total" Psych lim after it's been approved. I had someone "bait and switch" me with a "Moderate Code v. Killing" in an Iron-Age vigilante campaign once, and it was a disaster. The whole thing ended up imploding, partly due to his out-of-genre antics.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Could you give me an example of a psych lim that you think was well played then?

 

When a PC with Overconfident, Total lowered his DCV for an entire fight against a group of villains with a rep for being posers which almost cost him the battle.

 

 

As I mentioned the Character was traumatized afterwards (But I don't think he changed his stance on killing.)

 

What do you mean by traumatized? How was this disadvantageous for him? I'm sure the role playing was interesting and dramatic. I'm thinking of it from the game angle. A Disadvantage should be a hindrance, not disposable even if its Psych. The character with a 20 Vulnerability can't just a situation is too important and by pass it.

 

 

Also that was the only example in which said character went against his code, you have no idea (nor do I for that matter) how many times it came up. Just the one example when he overrode his beliefs What would have been an appropriate consequence for saving the universe?

 

 

I can only go on information provided in the thread. As I said, I would either given him a another psych lim or docked some experience according to the information given. I might have let him do it but there would be some consequence. It's not 20 free points.

 

 

The chart accompanying gives Total as "Ego Roll - 5"

 

 

That roll is also at the GM's discretion though.

 

 

+10 Total: Character becomes totally useless or

completely irrational in the situation, and

will not change his mind for any reason;

EGO Roll at -5 (minimum) required to

change actions (if the GM allows such a

roll at all)

 

 

Did the character make that roll? It came across as if he were simply allowed to do it at will

 

 

Would you be upset that a character with a fear of spiders overcame that to save the day? They are still afraid of spiders but they acted rather than ran.

 

 

Yes, I would if I feel they acted in a manner inappropriate to their Psychological Limitations. No one is required to take them and most people treat them like jokes. I don't know how many Hero Gamers I've known that called them "psych crocks" that go away when they actually count. So yeah, I've become a hardcase about them. Your experiences appear to have better

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

The problem with the Gilt Complex scenario is that it's so blatant and heavy-handed that it doesn't teach anybody anything. It's like when a movie beats you over the head with the message. "Message, here's the MESSAGE, make sure you don't miss the MESSAAAAAAGE!" and just results in you not caring. The 'Takes body from Ego attacks' thing is especially egregious (*drink*).

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Yes, I would if I feel they acted in a manner inappropriate to their Psychological Limitations. No one is required to take them and most people treat them like jokes. I don't know how many Hero Gamers I've known that called them "psych crocks" that go away when they actually count. So yeah, I've become a hardcase about them. Your experiences appear to have better

 

Well I was pulling a memory from someone posting somewhere. So it could have easily been as easy as that or it could have been more difficult. But I'm not sure why the one instance where there was no real choice in the matter should be pointed out as a flaw in the character design. Nor do I think one instance is a sign that the character never felt the heat of the limitation. I was just pointing out that it is not a physical complication that requires the character to react only one way.

 

I'm not really sure that I've been luckier...like I said, I had a guy who's response to being stopped by the police as he strode towards a mall that had been assaulted by terrorists...was to open fire on the cops with his electrical powers. The other players quickly attacked him.

 

After 2 rounds I halted the game while we went over the idea again.

 

I've seen plenty of people role play code vs killing (in various degrees) very well. I have more trouble with the opposite end. People who want to kill everything and feel justified because they didn't take code vs killing.

[Mallo]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

All the mental limits are at the mercy of how well your players can roleplay. Can they hit the limit RP it without going overboard and or ruining play for others.

 

I can go beyond CvK and into any aspect of the game. But focusing on CvK I have no problem with it and some of the better in character conversations have been debates between a player who was a casual killer (with a secondary limitation that kept the body count down) and a character who did not have a total CvK about what they should do with an NPC vampire. (He's dead already right? Lets just make him stop moving around). Neither character got what they wanted both players had fun.

 

Mallo

[Patriot]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

CAK's are very playable, and needed in a good Superhero based game. There are always exceptions to the rule. One player wanted to take CAK at 19 points...Why, in case they ever went against Dr. Destroyer. Even a ninja superhero had it at the 10 point level, in 12 years he only killed on one occasion. The penalty for breaking a 20 point disad was unluck for a few games, along with the local law enforcement having a few questions.

[assault]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

FWIW, these days I regularly design supervillains that would take body from 12DC attacks. Most of them are Golden/Silver Age theme villains or mad scientists.

 

Then again, they are built for settings where most heroes have some minimal martial arts, and are inclined to use them in preference to hitting people with lightning bolts/fire blasts/magical chainsaws.

 

Mooks get it even tougher, of course, but at least are likely to drop after a single hit, so they rarely have to take another.

 

This is in a game where it's perfectly OK for the PCs to have 12 or even 14 DC attacks.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Well I was pulling a memory from someone posting somewhere. So it could have easily been as easy as that or it could have been more difficult. But I'm not sure why the one instance where there was no real choice in the matter should be pointed out as a flaw in the character design.

 

 

Nor do I think one instance is a sign that the character never felt the heat of the limitation. I was just pointing out that it is not a physical complication that requires the character to react only one way.

 

 

I know the differences between physical limitations and psychological. Not sure what I said to give you the impression otherwise other than disagree with the way a 3rd party handled something. The way the action was phrased: "Did it without hesitation" didn't sound like it was much an effort which is not something I would have allowed but that's me. I don't have a problem with other people's play styles. The only reason I asked was our of curiosity if the player faced any repercussions for it. I didn't say that was the only time the character faced an issue from the Disadvantage, I said I would have handled it differently that it was because I have a harder stance on Psychological Limitations due to past issues with them.

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Bolding mine. Just how inappropriate is it then to put on a costume and intervene in violent situations while throwing around superpowers in a superheroes campaign!?! Superheroes get that trope because it isn't about your powers but what you do with them. Forbidding CvK in a superheroes campaign is like banning the wear of colorful costumes or insisting that every now and then you're gonna find someone who needs killing and it makes so much more sense to plan for that one occasion than it does to plan for every more likely event you are certain to encounter. If it's not just the one occurrence, I'd suspect you really believed that "shooting a few out of hand would teach the rest better manners" or some other socially repugnant idea.

 

CvK in a military campaign? Less appropriate unless you want your stories to revolve around a medical unit and its crew comprised of conscientious objectors.

 

I agree with you completly

 

I think some of the disagreements in the thread come from a diferent philosophy in dealing with both Power Limitations and Complications. My personal philosophy is that given a decent range of encounters/ scenes in a superhero campaign. Most Limitations and Complications will come up on their own with little to no GM intervention. That worrying that x PC's hunted comes up in half the adventures because they took an 11- is just silly. Some GM's are stuck on punishing the PC's for every Limitation and Complication on the sheet. Often times bringing them up in ways that isn't part of the story at large in an attempt to be "fair" but ending up making the Player pay for everything on the sheet in a negative fashion.

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

When a PC with Overconfident, Total lowered his DCV for an entire fight against a group of villains with a rep for being posers which almost cost him the battle.

 

What do you mean by traumatized? How was this disadvantageous for him? I'm sure the role playing was interesting and dramatic. I'm thinking of it from the game angle. A Disadvantage should be a hindrance, not disposable even if its Psych. The character with a 20 Vulnerability can't just a situation is too important and by pass it.

 

I can only go on information provided in the thread. As I said, I would either given him a another psych lim or docked some experience according to the information given. I might have let him do it but there would be some consequence. It's not 20 free points.

 

That roll is also at the GM's discretion though.

 

Did the character make that roll? It came across as if he were simply allowed to do it at will

 

Yes, I would if I feel they acted in a manner inappropriate to their Psychological Limitations. No one is required to take them and most people treat them like jokes. I don't know how many Hero Gamers I've known that called them "psych crocks" that go away when they actually count. So yeah, I've become a hardcase about them. Your experiences appear to have better

 

There's a reason that there isn't a mechanic for punishing characters that violate their Psyc Complications. It's because they are there to help people Role play their characters. They aren't meant to be a whip to hurt the character with. When a Person with a Psych Complication comes to the circumstance that trips the complication it directs the Player to go in another direction.

ie The PC has Claustrophobia (fear of enclosed spaces) and needs to shut herself into the Coffin like Escape capsule. The Player knows that the PC won't want to do that action and should RP something about that reaction. The Moderate/ Strong /Total give an idea about how engrained said Complication is. So with Total Claustrophobia, the character may try to Pilot the ship in for a safe landing, or perhaps with the Other PC's talking her down she can make her Ego roll at -5 and enter the Escape capsule. Now what was the punishment for her going around her Complication, none. Besides putting herself and teammates into a situation that could have gotten them all killed. That's how Complications are supposed to work. That's why Steve changed the name from Disadvantage to Complication. It's supposed to remind you the GM and Player that these things are there to Complicate the story, not punish the Player.

 

So I imagine that the Guy with Total CvK that had to kill Galactus or watch the universe die had quite the Roleplaying spot light while he tried desperatly to find another way to resolve the issue at hand. Imagine the anguish and feeling of defeat when he realized that the only to save the universe was to kill the bad guy. I imagine that it clouds the way the character approaches things to this day. The PC/Player didn't need to be punished for going against the Complication. Everyone that was there at the game was rewarded (Hopefully) with the Roleplaying it took to get the character to the point where he would finally kill.

 

Sorry if you can't see this, I don't think I can explain it any better

 

PS we used to call them Psych Crocks because they crocked the character ie messed them up when they came up. It's part of the slang that many Hero Groups use.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

There's a reason that there isn't a mechanic for punishing characters that violate their Psyc Complications. It's because they are there to help people Role play their characters. They aren't meant to be a whip to hurt the character with. When a Person with a Psych Complication comes to the circumstance that trips the complication it directs the Player to go in another direction.

ie The PC has Claustrophobia (fear of enclosed spaces) and needs to shut herself into the Coffin like Escape capsule. The Player knows that the PC won't want to do that action and should RP something about that reaction. The Moderate/ Strong /Total give an idea about how engrained said Complication is. So with Total Claustrophobia, the character may try to Pilot the ship in for a safe landing, or perhaps with the Other PC's talking her down she can make her Ego roll at -5 and enter the Escape capsule. Now what was the punishment for her going around her Complication, none. Besides putting herself and teammates into a situation that could have gotten them all killed. That's how Complications are supposed to work. That's why Steve changed the name from Disadvantage to Complication. It's supposed to remind you the GM and Player that these things are there to Complicate the story, not punish the Player.

 

 

So I imagine that the Guy with Total CvK that had to kill Galactus or watch the universe die had quite the Roleplaying spot light while he tried desperatly to find another way to resolve the issue at hand. Imagine the anguish and feeling of defeat when he realized that the only to save the universe was to kill the bad guy. I imagine that it clouds the way the character approaches things to this day. The PC/Player didn't need to be punished for going against the Complication. Everyone that was there at the game was rewarded (Hopefully) with the Roleplaying it took to get the character to the point where he would finally kill.

 

And a player with a character with CvK can (and have) role played the choice in a similar fashion and not gotten 20 character points allegedly having limited choice in the matter. That's where it doesn't click for me.

 

Sorry if you can't see this, I don't think I can explain it any better

 

I'm not dumping on other people's style. I'm not talking down to anyone. I've been running and playing Champions for decades, have had dozens of happy players. I'm not some Noob that you have to talk down too. I've tried not to be insulting. If I've failed in that, please show me where I'll apologize but I would appreciate similar courtesy.

 

PS we used to call them Psych Crocks because they crocked the character ie messed them up when they came up. It's part of the slang that many Hero Groups use.

 

I see Psychological Disadvantages as being just like any other Limitation. If they are not limiting then they are worth nothing. The guy with a Vulnerability to Fire doesn't get to ignore it because he role played his fear of Fire well neither should someone with a Total psych lim. You didn't have to take it, you were rewarded for it. I didn't say they were to "punish" the player but the violating them should carry some sort of penalty otherwise their basically pointless. All too often Psych lims are the ones that players try to weasel out of the instant the become inconvenient. They're considered "free points" in allot of games, thus the name Psych Crocks (as in Crock of (****), at least that's been my experience.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

What do you mean by traumatized? How was this disadvantageous for him? I'm sure the role playing was interesting and dramatic. I'm thinking of it from the game angle.

What is "the game angle" in a role playing game if not making sure the "role playing was interesting and dramatic"? Complications are plot hooks and if a once in the course of an entire campaign situation causes a character to sacrifice his own personal morals for the higher good than suffer from it isn't thinking of the "game angle" than I don't know what is. How tangible the consequences are will vary by campaign, but just because they were primarily role played in this instance does not mean they are not there. It's all about the story. It's role playing, not war gaming.

[Querysphinx]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Oh, it's a valid scenario. It's the comic book version of human shields.

 

But the only reason to do the scenario in a game is to trick the heroes into accidentally killing an innocent.

 

Not the only reason. I've never done that in my games, but I can see it being done as a "figure out the ruse," scenario. The point being that the character only kills the innocent if he's being thickheaded and trigger happy.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Agreed. I've seen it happen accidentally in a Champions game. It wasn't a bait and switch. The player assumed the character, who was the daughter of a mobster, was a super because she wore a slinky, skin tight, revealing outfit, despite the fact that the situation was taking place in a trendy night club and she had not used any powers. The player initiated the combat with the idea of knocking her out from behind and then searching the office for something. A suprize 12d6 attack against an unarmored foe and knockback through a desk and into a cement wall left the NPC at -9. I don't even remember if the player had a CvK, but either way the death was entirely unintentional and the the player had to deal with the legal issues involving the death and the teammates (who did have CvK) changed attitudes towards that PC.

[Greywind]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Again, if they are getting them for "free" then the GM isn't doing his job.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

What is "the game angle" in a role playing game if not making sure the "role playing was interesting and dramatic"? .

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about making the Disad/Complication worth the points it granted the character. Players role play just fine without an accompanying Psychological Limitation. But if you want full control over your character regarding something I don't think you should take a Limitation for it, at least not one that gives you points. Over the years most of the time when playing the "role playing" generated by Psych lims has been trying to get out of them the moment actually become limiting and worth the points you got for them so I've gotten pretty hard on them. My new group is pretty good though.

 

 

 

 

If nothing else, this thread has certainly opened my eyes to the problems with "reward up front" style disadvantages. I used to be a pretty proponent for them but maybe the alternative method is better or at least less antagonistic.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I know the differences between physical limitations and psychological. Not sure what I said to give you the impression otherwise other than disagree with the way a 3rd party handled something. The way the action was phrased: "Did it without hesitation" didn't sound like it was much an effort which is not something I would have allowed but that's me. I don't have a problem with other people's play styles. The only reason I asked was our of curiosity if the player faced any repercussions for it. I didn't say that was the only time the character faced an issue from the Disadvantage' date=' I said I would have handled it differently that it was because I have a harder stance on Psychological Limitations due to past issues with them.[/quote']

 

Sorry, I suppose it was my way of retelling a story from memory.

I understand where you're coming from and you seem to understand my original point just fine - I'm just something of an arguer, sorry