Hatred + Enraged

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Dog Soldier

It's been a while since I've been in a fantasy game but isn't lumping Orcs and Goblins together a bit much? Also, shouldn't the hunted be a bit more specific? Perhaps hatred of orcs, enraged when facing goblins in combat and hunted by a particular tribe of orcs or goblins.

 

Yes, a particular tribe of orcs or goblins would be a better idea, I think. That's my usual tactic. But it could also be a caste of particular orc and goblin tribes, like a company of orcs that this PC fought before.

 

Personally, these are disadvantages, so I would treat them as such. Some people seem to take the all-or-nothing stance, that 60 points, or whatever high amount, of disadvantages means death for the character. I wouldn't take this stance at all. But then again, I think a heroic character hating anything is unheroic.

 

BTW is enraged, not beserk. With enraged, the character doesn't necessarily immediately attack. The PC could just take aggressive actions without drawing blood, like slapping an orc in the face. Most people think orcs would imediately try to kill such a person, but not necessarily so, they might just take it as an attempt by the PC to establish dominance, and a ritual might begin...

[trechriron]

Originally posted by Galadorn

Tripe, rationalization, pure bunk. This is the way the game system works, if you don't like it make changes to the game system, but arbitrariness is not called for. If you can't figure out the subtle differences between disadvantages, that's your problem - not your players.

 

Despite the venom of this delivery , I do agree that arbitrariness will in fact derail a game in very short order. “Truth in Game Mastering†establishes trust with the players. I feel that some good mechanics help alleviate arbitrary decisions on the GM’s part. However I disagree that any changes need to be made to the system. Just because it can be done does not mean it applies or should even be allowed within the context of the setting/story the GM is trying to run.

 

You should talk to your player and determine what story context these disadvantages were taken, then discuss some of the ways they could potentially come up in the game, and then adjust accordingly to BOTH the GM's and player's taste.

 

Originally posted by dugfromthearth

So the result would be:

-10 Psych Lim: Hatred of Orcs and Goblins (uncom, strong)

-8 Enraged: when facing Orcs and Goblins (uncom, 11-, 11-)

-10 Hunted: by Orcs and Goblins (8-, mo pow, limited area)

 

for -28 points of limitation

 

I think this is a great solution, a bit more realistic and manageable. I also like the idea of potentially attaching this to a specific tribe or demographically limiting the object of the disadvantage. Just because the Orc/Goblin tribes of the Pertoth Wastelands are barbarian animals does not mean the Quintish Orc Clan that borders the Known Kingdoms have anywhere near as many bad habits.

 

My favorite question: What’s your character concept?

 

Decide from there if this is a justified story-based characterization or a desire to utilize the system to steer your plot in a desired direction, in this case a potential Orc killing spree. If you both decide a campaign centered around this theme would be fun, then certainly you should pursue it. Those disads will not hurt a bit under those circumstances. If you think that a maniacal Orc killer is not a good fit, have your player tone it down or re-think the concept.

 

Just my two cents…

[shinrin]

Originally posted by Galadorn

Tripe, rationalization, pure bunk. This is the way the game system works, if you don't like it make changes to the game system, but arbitrariness is not called for. If you can't figure out the subtle differences between disadvantages, that's your problem - not your players.

 

Being arbitrary is what a GM does in any game. He controls what is allowed or isn't allowed in a game. Players can make bad choices and any GM should let them know what may become of it. Assuming the player we are all talking about is experienced in HERO, he should already know the consequences of his Disads, but I get the feeling this is a new player, otherwise Alcamtar wouldn't have asked the opinion of the community about taking these Disads. No new player wants to be "ambushed" by an uncaring GM who exploits a Disad if that player had no clue as to the severity of the outcome. I'm saying a GM should discuss any Disads with players, because sometimes they take Disads thinking that a GM isn't going to call it up during a game. Then the player gets indignant when it comes up and things go badly. "Well, geez, if I had known it was going to be that bad, I wouldn't have taken that combination of Disads. Why didn't you say anything?"

[trechriron]

Originally posted by shinrin

Being arbitrary is what a GM does in any game...

 

I respectfully disagree with this outlook.

 

Being creative, inventive, and improvising are all great hallmarks of a good GM. Being arbitrary will never be an appreciative quality of a GM. Deciding if a certain disad or even a combination of disads applies to your game is not being arbitrary. Leveraging consequences against a character for having a disad is not being arbitrary if the player knows ahead of time that taking these particular disads could result in them.

 

A GM deciding to do whatever they want whenever they want regardless of established game conventions or agreed upon standards in the group is being arbitrary and this will create mistrust in the players. Having a characteristic or background makes no difference to the outcome of the arbitrary GM’s decision. It will simply be made at the whimsy of the GM. I have never played in a game with a GM utilizing this tactic that even remotely bordered on being considered “goodâ€. Yes, the GM is the master of his/her setting and story. The goal should be to create that story with the players.

 

I think the sentiment of discussing it first, working it out, and adjusting it if necessary is the best way of providing your players with a sense of involvement and establishing trust with them. If you are too arbitrary, they could lose their desire to be creative for fear of reprisal or simply frustration at the realization nothing they do/say/feel matters in your game.

 

In this case, the player may sincerely want to play a character both troubled by and with Orcs. It would be wrong to assume this was an abuse of point maximizing and leverage consequences disproportionate to the disads. If after all is said and done, your player insists on a course of action you have advised against, and you still will allow it, any responsibility for consequences falls squarely in the player’s lap. That is not being arbitrary. If you decide that running a game with this character would be too difficult or you simply don’t want to run a game of this nature, would not be arbitrary. Allowing this set of disads without batting an eyelash and then latter roasting the character over his proverbial fire while laughing maniacally and taunting him with his obvious lack of foresight could very well be considered arbitrary. This is not a problem with the disad system. It would boil down to a collaboration and communication issue.

 

Just my two cents… (again).

 

(Disclaimer: The last diatribe/paragraph was not inferring/assuming/accusing anyone of this behavior. It was simply an exaggerated string of examples I was using to illustrate my point. The word arbitrary has such varied application to the whole GMing thing that I was simply venting on my negative impressions on arbitrary GMing in the context I have seen it applied in the past.)

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by trechriron

Despite the venom of this delivery

 

Yes indeed, venom toward unjust thoughts, not any individual.

 

I do agree that arbitrariness will in fact derail a game in very short order. “Truth in Game Mastering†establishes trust with the players. I feel that some good mechanics help alleviate arbitrary decisions on the GM’s part. However I disagree that any changes need to be made to the system. Just because it can be done does not mean it applies or should even be allowed within the context of the setting/story the GM is trying to run.

 

Well, I don't think that any adjustments need to be made in the system either. I think the problem is that certain GMs don't understand the system to begin with.

 

I guess having played the hero system for so long, I'm taking all those discussion me and other hero system GM's had over many years.

 

You should talk to your player and determine what story context these disadvantages were taken, then discuss some of the ways they could potentially come up in the game, and then adjust accordingly to BOTH the GM's and player's taste.

 

Exactly my point, I spoke so much about players because others were slanting everything toward GM's tastes. This should be wrote up before a campaign is even started, so that BOTH parties have an understanding what the house rules are - and there are no surprises.

 

Nothing like using a spell you've used the same way for years, suddenly change it's special effect with no prior warning - and no plot or campaign reason for it.

 

My favorite question: What’s your character concept?

 

Exaaaaaaaaaactly, sounds like we have an experience GM here.

 

Decide from there if this is a justified story-based characterization or a desire to utilize the system to steer your plot in a desired direction, in this case a potential Orc killing spree. If you both decide a campaign centered around this theme would be fun, then certainly you should pursue it. Those disads will not hurt a bit under those circumstances. If you think that a maniacal Orc killer is not a good fit, have your player tone it down or re-think the concept.

 

Just my two cents…

 

I agree. No need for killing off characters and going beyond the bounds of the limitation. If you don't like the disad.s:

• 
  1. Tell the player you don't.
  2. Talk about how you can change the disad.s or give other ones similar in taste.
  3. And DON'T go off willy-nilly and kill their character because you have a problem expressing your opinions and feelings.
  4. If the player is beligerent about it, NOW we have a problem.

[trechriron]

Originally posted by Galadorn

 

Nothing like using a spell you've used the same way for years, suddenly change it's special effect with no prior warning - and no plot or campaign reason for it.

 

 

This is exactly the kind of stuff I am against and I completely agree, that is ZERO fun to play.

 

 

Exaaaaaaaaaactly, sounds like we have an experience GM here.

 

 

I have been doing this for a couple (20+) years… ;-)

 

Thanks for your comments!

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by trechriron

This is exactly the kind of stuff I am against and I completely agree, that is ZERO fun to play.

 

I agree.

 

I have been doing this for a couple (20+) years… ;-)

 

Thanks for your comments!

 

I've been doing it for 20+ years as well, that's how I know you're experienced.

 

And, you're welcome.

[shinrin]

My bad

 

Originally posted by trechriron

I respectfully disagree with this outlook.

 

Being creative, inventive, and improvising are all great hallmarks of a good GM. Being arbitrary will never be an appreciative quality of a GM. Deciding if a certain disad or even a combination of disads applies to your game is not being arbitrary. Leveraging consequences against a character for having a disad is not being arbitrary if the player knows ahead of time that taking these particular disads could result in them.

 

Okay, I confused the meaning of the word "arbitrary" with "arbitrate". I looked up the former in the dictionary and it does have a negative definition.

[trechriron]

Re: My bad

 

Originally posted by shinrin

Okay, I confused the meaning of the word "arbitrary" with "arbitrate"...

 

Now that makes perfect sense.

 

I get what you were saying now. That is hilarious, a simple word taking that whole thing out of context. OK, where’s my ESP when I need it? I think I dropped it over here somewhere…

 

I apologize if the post was a bit excessive. I guess I am suffering from a sort of post traumatic stress disorder relating to a couple past GMs who near drove me insane with this ideology. I hope I did not offend you as that was not my intent.

 

Ciao for now,

[trechriron]

Re: Hatred + Enraged

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

I have a player who is proposing …

 

So was any of this useful? Besides hijacking your post and turning into an “ arbitrary GM†diatribe?

 

Maybe you could tell us what solution you are choosing and share the response/outcome?

 

That would be cool.

[Alcamtar]

Yes it was very helpful. Thank you all. I chatted with the player and he agreed to rework his disads. I disallowed the Hatred + Enraged combo, but allowed one or the other in combination with Hunted... I also suggested a total of 25 points related to orcs.

 

IMC, orcs have been locked in genocidal war against the elves for thousands of years, but have yet to succeed. So the player had the right idea, just a bit too much.

 

Regarding the racism thing - the orcs are definitely racist toward the elves; but the elves are more noble. This PC is unusually bitter for an elf, and the player understands this. I also made it clear that players will get "full value" for any disads they take.

 

Mike

[shinrin]

Re: Re: My bad

 

Originally posted by trechriron

Now that makes perfect sense.

 

I get what you were saying now. That is hilarious, a simple word taking that whole thing out of context. OK, where’s my ESP when I need it? I think I dropped it over here somewhere…

 

I apologize if the post was a bit excessive. I guess I am suffering from a sort of post traumatic stress disorder relating to a couple past GMs who near drove me insane with this ideology. I hope I did not offend you as that was not my intent.

 

Ciao for now,

 

No worries. I knew something was up once I started seeing what response I was getting to my post. Your original reply really put the spotlight on the word "arbitrary" and made me go straight to my dictionary. They do say that English is one of the more complicated languages these days...

[Galadorn]

Re: My bad

 

Originally posted by shinrin

Okay, I confused the meaning of the word "arbitrary" with "arbitrate". I looked up the former in the dictionary and it does have a negative definition.

 

Yes Shinrin, no problem. I'm a professional writer, I tend to use the words very precisely.

 

For those who are interested, here is a site I use for my dictionaries. http://www.dictionary.com You can bring up seven different dictionary's definitions of the same word, up at the same time.

[Galadorn]

Re: Re: My bad

 

Originally posted by trechriron

Now that makes perfect sense.

 

I get what you were saying now. That is hilarious, a simple word taking that whole thing out of context.

 

It happens, believe me. Trying doing hermenutics (http://www.dictionary.com) with people who think they have graduate education, and don't. LOL.

 

OK, where’s my ESP when I need it? I think I dropped it over here somewhere…

 

I think you spent all your points in EGO and forgot the Telepathy.

[trechriron]

Originally posted by Alcamtar

Yes it was very helpful. Thank you all …

 

Mike

 

That's good to know, you're welcome from me, and I'm glad our shenanigans didn't obfuscate the useful bits!!

 

Originally posted by Galadorn

 

I think you spent all your points in EGO and forgot the Telepathy.

 

Ouch!!

 

OK, OK, guilty as charged…