How do you balance Complications with Storyline?

[bigdamnhero]

Hrmmm, not sure I like that.  If I don't have Viper as a Hunted, in fact don't have anything to do with Viper in my Complications; but, it makes sense after the game that I now get Viper as a Hunted; if I'm gonna make the roles and use them as a Complication in my game, shouldn't they get something for it?  Even if it's just some extra XP to add up to the value of the Hunted Complication?  (So, not in addition to the XP for the game, but as part of it.)

Nothing wrong with giving out extra XP for it. The RAW assume you'll be making new enemies & such in game, and Complications really only reflect the ones you bring to the table at the start. As noted, common practice is to either swap it out with another Complication, or just let them pile up narratively with no points involved. However you want to handle it.

 

One note tho: remember that in 6ed you don't actually get character points for taking Complications: it's simply a guideline that characters of X character points should have at least Y points worth of Complications. I know not everyone here loves that change (and I'm not looking to reignite that debate!) but IMO it recognizes that Complications are a fundamental part of the character, rather than something munchkiney that you throw on because you want more points.

 

Then the GM could require the players to take Mystery Complication of X points, to fill in as he chooses, so that what happens in the first couple of game sessions can be used to fill in the Complication list.

Mystery Complications are fun if you have trusting players. I had one player that went a couple of years wondering if I was ever going to pull the trigger on his Mystery Complication...only to eventually find out that it had been running in the background the whole time coloring certain NPC interactions. I wouldn't normally recommend dragging it out that long, but it made for one heck of a reveal!

 

I'm of the school of thought that taking a particular Complication means you WANT it come up. If you want to play Spider-Man and take "Complication: Secret Identity", it means you WANT to have to deal with missed dates, missed work, angry girlfriends and bosses,a reputation for being a forgetful flake and so forth. If you want to play Spider-Man but don't want to deal with those things, you don't take that complication. You can still _have_ a secret identity, but it's not going to be an issue for you.

This. So very much this! Perhaps the single best question a GM can ask a player at character generation is "Tell me how you see this Complication coming up in game?"

[Scott Baker]

You seem to be mainly concerned with Complications that represent People Who Show Up Sometimes (PWSUS):

Does that match other GMs' experience?

 

 

This was one of the 6ed changes I was most skeptical of. But after a few years of playing it, I think it does tend to encourage focusing on a few important Complications, rather than several mediocre ones, which therefore tend to be easier to incorporate into the game AND more significant when they do turn up. YMMV.

PWSUS: My gut feeling says this feels about right.

 

Complications: I like the change because it matched what I had already concluded years before. Focus on the important aspects. Don't reward/require people to cripple their characters just to get points.

[Scott Baker]

Then the GM could require the players to take Mystery Complication of X points, to fill in as he chooses, so that what happens in the first couple of game sessions can be used to fill in the Complication list.

 

 

That's a good idea.

 

A long-time favorite of mine for team-based games is the "Mystery Team Hunted". Sometimes they know who it is at the start. Sometimes they don't. In the game I'm playing in right now, the hunted is changing each series (basically when we wrap up an overarching story-arc). We've only just started Series 3, so I don't know if that will always be true; it kind of depends on what the story arc is.

[Echo3Niner]

My approach to Complications in any Champions game I ever run in the future will be thus:

 

1. Players get a flat number of character points to build their characters. NO points from Complications. None. Nada. Zip.

 

2. Player may take as many complications as they like, or as few, or none. As GM, I retain the right to veto a given complication if it strikes me as silly (the kind of thing that will break the mood of the game) or otherwise unworkable (a tendency to go into an indiscriminate killing frenzy at the drop of a hat, etc).

 

3. When (AND IF) the Complication comes up in play, and the player actually treats it as a problem and doesn't gloss over it, the player will get an EP bonus for it at the end of the session/adventure.

 

The end result is that players can freely take which complications they really want to play out*, ignore those they don't, and they only get an XP bonus if they actually live up to the ones they take.

 

I'm of the school of thought that taking a particular Complication means you WANT it come up. If you want to play Spider-Man and take "Complication: Secret Identity", it means you WANT to have to deal with missed dates, missed work, angry girlfriends and bosses,a reputation for being a forgetful flake and so forth. If you want to play Spider-Man but don't want to deal with those things, you don't take that complication. You can still _have_ a secret identity, but it's not going to be an issue for you. With any requirement to take complications just for the points removed, I would hope the players will only take complications that accurately reflect the sort of character they want to play.

 

I like this too!

[Cantriped]

I like your approach to complications Sinanju.

 

I have kept to the standard point values in my 400-point Champions Complete game (including matching complications); in addition, I've "awarded" social-context complications as the plot befit it. However, because the characters in that campaign already had their allotment of matching complications and I didn't want to give the impression their character's were "getting worse" faster than they improved/acquired experience, I split their complications into an Active and Inactive list. The players had some control over which Complications were Active from session to session. Only Social Complications, Hunted/ing, DNPCs, and similar social context complications could be made inactive, and Inactive Complications simply don't come up or get rolled against, I ignore them. This hasn't really felt like a meaningful system, and didn't encourage the behavior I wanted it to.

[Lucius]

 

I hate to flatly contradict you, but...

 

One note tho: remember that in 6ed you don't actually get character points for taking Complications: it's simply a guideline that characters of X character points should have at least Y points worth of Complications.. I know not everyone here loves that change

The change is not what you say it is. The name changed, surely, and the point totals changed and the presentation definitely changed, but the way they work is 100% identical to the way they always worked. If the guideline is "400 pts with 75 pts of Complications" I can in fact still take a character built on 325 pts with no Complications at all, or one built on 335 pts with 10 pts of Complications, or whatever. Just like before. The biggest change is the way this information is presented, so that instead of being easy to understand it is obscure and difficult.

 

Now, by all means, if anyone wants to run a game and say "X number of Complications is absolutely mandatory" they can do that. And the rulebook seems to have been written with the intention of giving the IMPRESSION a certain number of Complications are mandatory - but it stops just short of explicitly mandating them.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

So is a palindromedary in my tagline mandatory, or an option I always choose to exercise?

[drunkonduty]

I would say it's some sort of compulsion.

[Greywind]

Mind control is like that.

[Christopher R Taylor]

A tougher question is how do you balance limitations with story?  OAF is worth -1 limitation but how often do you remove peoples' foci?  Do you use a formula like 1/play session for -1?

[Greywind]

Whatever feels right. Check the intelligence of the opposition and their means to disarm.

[bigdamnhero]

The change is not what you say it is. The name changed, surely, and the point totals changed and the presentation definitely changed, but the way they work is 100% identical to the way they always worked. If the guideline is "400 pts with 75 pts of Complications" I can in fact still take a character built on 325 pts with no Complications at all, or one built on 335 pts with 10 pts of Complications, or whatever. Just like before. The biggest change is the way this information is presented, so that instead of being easy to understand it is obscure and difficult.

I just re-read the relevant section from 6e1, and you're right - I was reading more into the text than was there. I disagree that it's more obscure & difficult, but YMMV.

 

I hate to flatly contradict you, but...

When I'm flat wrong, please do.

[pinecone]

In reference to the OAF, I play it as "coming up" every session, or even every fight. That does not mean I glom it somehow. But somebody tries all the time. Even if it's a DNPC/Stalker who wants to be your sidekick. OAF comes up somehow.

 

In my personal experience, OAFs tend to only show up on "new person" char sheets. experienced players prefer to avoid the drama. The vast point savings turns out to be a major hindrance, thus justifying the cost break.

[Cantriped]

In my opinion: The best way to make OAF, Restrainable, and Gestures come up in gameplay, without debilitating the player who choose to take them, would be villains who make use of easily broken single-target Entangles and "Bearhug" style Grabs. This way the player in question is sufficiently limited during the encounter, but their allies can still help them out; which should lead to better teamwork on the part of the players, and encourage the character's to feel gratitude for one another.

 

A few other ways of making limitations hinder the character include the following:

 

Incantations   |   Darkness to Hearing Group, 1-2m Radius, Only Affects Voice (-1/4)

 

Concentration   |   Weak (STUN Only or low dice Penetrating Blast), Triggered, Area of Effect attacks (like baby landmines) scattered throughout the battlefield.

 

Charges   |   Small, High PER Roll Penalty Images to Sight Group and/or weak Summons which force the character to waste ammunition they should have saved for the main villain.

 

Linked or Unified Powers   |   Mediocre Drain/Suppress by Special Effect.

 

Abusive Fixed-Slot Multipowers   |   Drain Multipower Reserve 1d6 (Standard Effect: -3 CP), Penetrating, Delayed Return Rate (5 points per 5 Minutes/1 point per Minute) (This one is kinda messed up to pull on a player)

 

Special Effect based Conditional Limitations (such as Doesn't Work On [Defined Type Of] Damage, Limited Power, Conditional Power, etc)   |   Plot (GM Fiat) or Change Environment used to create the circumstances where the power(s) will be less effective, or Attacks with Variable Special Effects to render conditional Defense Powers ineffective.

[Lucius]

I just re-read the relevant section from 6e1, and you're right - I was reading more into the text than was there. I disagree that it's more obscure & difficult, but YMMV.

I'm really not trying to pick on you. If anything, I want to pick on Steve Long.

But I will point out that first you admit to having failed to understand the rules....and then you deny that they are obscure and difficult.

 

There's a reason you read more into the text than was there, and it's because of how that text is written. It could have been - and should have been - much easier to understand.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reflects that maxing out Disadvantages was never mandatory, but a lot of people seemed to do it anyway.

[BoloOfEarth]

Regarding Disadvantages and Storyline (and keeping in mind I haven't run in 6th yet), I tended to sketch out the main plot for an evening, then rolled all the Disads for all the player characters and NPCs involved.  Even had a program (in Access, along with my speedsheet program) which rolled for all the PCs and spit out a report, including what the die roll was.  Then I would look at all of them together and see if there's any pattern that would either fit in well with the main plot, or would run counter to it.  Often, I'd drop a Disad or two that didn't fit with the rest.  And if the roll for a disad was incredibly low, I'd make sure that one happened and often tried to increase how much of a PITA that would be for the player.  And if the Disads rolled seemed to run counter to the main plot, and more to the point if the Disads fit together well, I would occasionally change the main plot to fit the Disads rolled.

 

For instance, let's say the plot is for VIPER to steal the Master Mystic MacGuffin from a local museum and use it to de-power one of the heroes.  And for the hero team, two of them (including the to-be-depowered hero, aka TBD Hero) are college students and their Secret Identity rolled low enough to mean it makes an appearance for both of them.  Not only that, but TBD Hero's Hunted by Utility (11-) rolled a 4, and Hero #3's DNPC: Uncle Brad (11-) rolled a 10.  And to round it all out, Utility's Hunted by PRIMUS kicks in.

 

Well, now it looks like the MacGuffin museum is on the college campus, and the attack will happen while the two heroes (in SID, of course) are nearby with a bunch of friends.  Furthermore, VIPER is going to pay Utility to help get TBD Hero where they want him to use the MacGuffin.  TBD Hero might even notice Utility on campus after the theft, always when TBD Hero isn't in a position to easily chase after him (like he's in class, or has been waiting in line at the college office for over an hour to get a problem with his tuition fixed) and nowhere near the museum.  And all the heroes notice PRIMUS nosing around the campus, in places that have nothing to do with the MacGuffin theft.

 

But what about Uncle Brad, you ask?  I'd either drop him from appearing at all this adventure (but make a note to work him into the next adventure), or make his appearance this adventure something minor.

[BoloOfEarth]

A final note:  In my previous Champions campaign, and also in my upcoming campaign, I've asked the players to each provide up to 5 NPCs (Note: not DNPCs) -- just a name, who they are and how they're connected to the PC, to round out their world.  Family, friends, classmates/coworkers, etc., for which I give the PC +1 bonus point per NPC provided.  I promise not to turn them into DNPCs, never use them as hostages or what-not, but at least one NPC for each PC usually puts in at least a token appearance each session.  Sometimes they provide helpful info, other times not.  (One heroine's NPC mom saw a supervillain rob a bank, a coworker NPC might complain about the PC's actions the day before not knowing he's actually talking to the hero in secret ID, etc.)

 

I've found they add a lot of color to the world, even if their entire appearance consists of stuff like "While you were fighting Lady MacDeath, your sister called and left a voicemail - she has four tickets to see Hamlet next week and is inviting you and your new girlfriend to join her and her husband."

[mikeward2534]

A tougher question is how do you balance limitations with story?  OAF is worth -1 limitation but how often do you remove peoples' foci?  Do you use a formula like 1/play session for -1?

 

That's really a good question. The way me and the person I am learning to GM from handle it is:

 

1) Have the player specify what the focus is (Gun/ring/necklace/etc)

2) In combat note if any attacks hit the area where the foci is

3) Make a roll to see if it comes off

 

That has led to some interesting situations. (Ocean Floor and loose my life support necklace do to a boat hitting me in the head...) Also are table seems to think its fair and fun. If enemies have appropriate skills (Find weakness or something) they may even target that region hoping to remove the foci. Basically I leave foci removal to the dice and plain luck. Well or unluck depending on how the dice lands.

 

As for the main question that was asked. I don't mind my players taking hunted, watched, DNPC, etc, I just ask them who are hunting them and why. If I can't make it work in the main plot I simply ask them if it could be someone or something else that would better mesh with the storyline. Talk with your players about what they are wanting. If they just want the points turn it down, if they want it to add to the story work with them to make it not abraisive to your plot.

[Christopher R Taylor]

And its not just foci.  Any limitation, how do you work them into the game, do you plan on it or just apply them as the game goes along?  How often does that "no effect in strong magnetic fields" come up?  Some are self policing like Requires a Roll or x2 END Cost, but others the GM has some control over.

[Greywind]

Sometimes, depending on the item's nature, you can plot whole stories behind it. Mystical artifact? Another wizard wants it, hires someone to acquire it, etc.

[BoloOfEarth]

I don't tend to specifically "target" a Limitation (whether a Focus, Limited, etc.) unless it hasn't come into play on its own during a reasonable number of prior adventures. 

 

One PC in a past campaign had the ability to "power up" his SPD but only 4 times a day for a Turn duration.  However, since Champions combats don't tend to happen multiple times a day and rarely last more than a few Turns in my games, it didn't come into play on its own.  So eventually I designed an adventure that culminated in a series of at least 5 separate combats.  After the third combat, he figured out what I was up to and reluctantly stayed powered down for the next combat.  And you've never heard a player complain so much.

[sinanju]

A final note:  In my previous Champions campaign, and also in my upcoming campaign, I've asked the players to each provide up to 5 NPCs (Note: not DNPCs) -- just a name, who they are and how they're connected to the PC, to round out their world.  Family, friends, classmates/coworkers, etc., for which I give the PC +1 bonus point per NPC provided.  I promise not to turn them into DNPCs, never use them as hostages or what-not, but at least one NPC for each PC usually puts in at least a token appearance each session.  Sometimes they provide helpful info, other times not.  (One heroine's NPC mom saw a supervillain rob a bank, a coworker NPC might complain about the PC's actions the day before not knowing he's actually talking to the hero in secret ID, etc.)

 

I've found they add a lot of color to the world, even if their entire appearance consists of stuff like "While you were fighting Lady MacDeath, your sister called and left a voicemail - she has four tickets to see Hamlet next week and is inviting you and your new girlfriend to join her and her husband."

 

I've done this, and I've played in games I enjoyed where the GM required this. I agree that it really helps flesh out your character. Too many player characters are orphaned only children with few friends. Murder-Hobos, in other words. Requiring the player to specify five ordinary NPCs the character interacts with on a regular basis goes a long way toward giving them some roots in the campaign.

 

And it's one of the reasons I now make the distinction between "My hero has a girlfriend" and "My hero has the Complication DNPC: Girlfriend" in my games. In my games, if you want your character to have parents, siblings, a girlfriend, a best friend, a boss, or some combination of any or all of those, you DON'T have to take them as DNPCs.  They'll be around. They'll interact with the player character, but they won't be subject to frequent/constant kidnappings, hostage situations and death threats.

 

Plus, if you have four players, that's 20 NPCs you, the GM, don't have to create. But it provides you some insight into how your players see their characters' lives, and provides opportunities for you to add more NPCs (friends of friends, other coworkers, etc) to the mix, and make the game world that much more real.

[Echo3Niner]

It's funny; in my campaign idea thread, I mentioned that I was an avid Shadowrun GM.  That's something SR does really well.  You get three contacts for free, they are all level 1 (which means they know you, that's about it).  You can have others, that are level 2 or 3.  Level 2 are folks who are your friends, there is trust there, and they'd not sell you out for nothing; but, if the bad guys gonna kill their kid in front of them, they'll sing like a bird.  Level 3 are buddies, and they'll take a shot for you.  But, there is also "upkeep" on level 2 & 3, and they for sure will likely be involved in the game...

 

Sounds like I'll be adapting that for my Champions game...

[Cantriped]

...In my previous Champions campaign, and also in my upcoming campaign, I've asked the players to each provide up to 5 NPCs (Note: not DNPCs)...

 

I am totally going to use this idea in my upcoming Champions campaign.

 

To Echo3Niner: If you haven't already done so, I suggest looking up how HERO system handles Contacts, and then giving your players either a set number of points worth of contacts or a set of pre-defined contacts as part of your Campaign's Everyman Package.  If you have access to the Advanced Players Guide I, pages 191-196, you might also consider awarding Contact/Follower Resource Points at character generation or as Fixed Experience Point Awards

[BoloOfEarth]

 

In my games, if you want your character to have parents, siblings, a girlfriend, a best friend, a boss, or some combination of any or all of those, you DON'T have to take them as DNPCs.  They'll be around. They'll interact with the player character, but they won't be subject to frequent/constant kidnappings, hostage situations and death threats.

 

Plus, if you have four players, that's 20 NPCs you, the GM, don't have to create. But it provides you some insight into how your players see their characters' lives, and provides opportunities for you to add more NPCs (friends of friends, other coworkers, etc) to the mix, and make the game world that much more real.

So very much this, on both parts.  As GM, it's hard not to knee-jerk put the NPCs into dangerous situations as if they were DNPCs, though I did have them on the periphery a lot (witness a robbery the PC finds out about after the fact, etc.).

 

The fun part, to me, was a year or two into the game when cross-interaction started to happen -- PCs would meet and become friends with someone else's NPC.  Or the PCs interact with a "friend-of-a-friend" NPC.  You're right, it really does make the game world more real.

 

For example, Serendipity (in her secret ID) was dating a real estate mogul named Aidan.  He had a personal assistant (Margaret) whom Serendipity would frequently talk to.  (In effect, Aidan was Serendipity's NPC, and Margaret was Aidan's NPC.)  At one point, Sentinel (another heroine PC) and Serendipity, both in their secret IDs, took Margaret out for a spa day.  And later in the campaign Serendipity (a small business owner) helped Margaret set up her own secretarial temp agency.

 

To Echo3Niner: If you haven't already done so, I suggest looking up how HERO system handles Contacts, and then giving your players either a set number of points worth of contacts or a set of pre-defined contacts as part of your Campaign's Everyman Package.  If you have access to the Advanced Players Guide I, pages 191-196, you might also consider awarding Contact/Follower Resource Points at character generation or as Fixed Experience Point Awards

 

Excellent idea about the Contacts.  In my new game I'm giving each hero 5 extra points specifically to put into a Contact.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I expect most GMs, maybe all, give players freebies based on their background, profession, and story.  You might not pay for your contacts, but you still will know people at the office, have people you can call from your past, etc.

 

I do like the NPC requirement though, that makes building depth and non-combat character story stuff a lot easier and broader.  Its a simple, useful device.