Thane

Re: Making Hero 6E More Dangerous (Skyrealms of Jorune Conversion) ? True, but things like this often ruin mood - depending on playstyle of course. Some games may encourage such behavior, some may discourage it. Depends if you are going for "gritty&dangerous" as a feel and level of tension, or "gritty&dangerous" as in "truly realistic". I was thinking along the lines "if you want the mood set right you might think that players focusing on their 4 pages of equipment they have on the cart/horse/magic backpack/whatever else and browsing through them as a response to the threat is not a good idea - letting them focus on the threat and imminent danger, feel the tension instead may be a nice idea". Of course YMMV. It worked for me (even though I was going for tension alone, without the grittiness) so I thought I'd share my view about it with someone who is also new and probably doesn't even know "points for equipment" rules exist in HERO (I didn't).

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?"?

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.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Actually, he didn't. It wasn't an action-heavy type of campaign. 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. 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.

Re: Making Hero 6E More Dangerous (Skyrealms of Jorune Conversion) ? I actually had normal classic adventures in mind, where there is no "armoury", just the "we carry all this stuff because it might come in handy". Equipment Pools I know nothing about, since I havn't yet played heroic HERO, I'm trying to catch up on all the superheroic rules to know them by heart as soon as possible so my game cun run smooth. So yes, I might be wrong, my understanding of EQ Pools is not flawed, I just didn't yet had the opportunity to read it so there is no real understanding at all If they solve issues like "so guys, let's take all we can get our hands on which has even a 0,01% of being useful to increase our chance of surviva"l, consider my advice to "see if you like points for equipment rules" void in this case.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems 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.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems Neither me nor my players feel that way - that is probably a remnant of GURPS thinking, where some players actually think it's better not to have 25 points of disadvantages and making character with lower "active point total". HERO thinking is along the lines that only "Active Point total" matters, and complications only limit the "real point total" - if characters ever had that sort of thing. That is probably the reason why it's so hard for me to say why I think that sometimes a 5 point complication is just worth -5 points.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems To add something about "the rule of being above complication limit" - I've never actually seen anyone try to abuse it. It's not a case of "hm, I need to take unluck or some common vulnerability to get some more points". There were only 4 instances of it ever being applied: - the first one happened when one of my players (there were 5 of them at that time) wanted to play a blind elf in dark fantasy campaign - I allowed blindness (worth -50 in GURPS) to "not count" into the disadvantage limit (-75 at that time, close to -45 in HERO) to allow him to still create a character whose only weakness wasn't the fact that he was blind - thus, a discussion was born and my and my players reached a consensus that it is good to sometimes allow such things, - the "crystal man" had vulnerability to crushing attacks, but it also "ate" almost all of his disadvantage limit - hence, he was allowed to take normal disads and still get points for being vulnerable to crushing attacks, - the "wizard gentleman", who had vowed never to hurt or even attack a woman and had "will never use it on a female") on all his "powers", yet needed a complication in a campaign with very low allowance (it was -50 points in GURPS, something close to -30 in HERO I think) - he also had few other disadvantages which were essential, thus, he was allowed to count his vow as "selling back his ability to act against females", - the vampire (both in GURPS and HERO right now) with his vulnerability to silver - few races in my current setting have vulnerabilities (or susceptibilities) to provide a reasonable explanation for why they havn't smashed the human race (how many times can you reuse the "they breed too slowly" cliche?). On the other hand, there was only one case of a player asking to apply the rule and me not allowing it - a space opera character who had two bionic arms, some bionic internal orans and both of his eyes were also bionic (shuttle accident) and wanted "vulnerability to electricity" not to count. But since the player took various abilities to prevent anything from happening to his implants and counter electrical attacks, I didn't agree. I proposed to reduce the value of the disadvantage on a pact that I will rarely attack him with electricity directly. He agreed and removed many powers which served the sole purpose of guarding him against energy attacks.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems As always - this is not a hard - and - fast rule, nor is it foolproof. It always requires GM's judgement to apply it. That is why, by default, it is only applied to racial package deals.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems As for the "Vampire argument" - I will clarify: - Most people think of "common vulnerabilities" as a way of inviting death - so do my players, however - Most players are willing to accept "inviting death" if they know it is not treated the same way as let's say two social complications, which will always, in the mind of players I have played with, cause less trouble, and these disadvantages sometimes suit the characters very well - yet players avoid them fearing that it will actually cause death, just as they fear taking "very heavy" complications with fear of their character being destroyed by them (socially, psychologically etc.), That is what I've tried to underline (but probably failed). The reason the distinction was made was to encourage taking suitable but large complications, not try to hit the limit with small stuff which will certainly not come into play all at once or even in parts. Aside from the fact, that in my experience a lot of small limitations / disadvantages / complciations will inevitably suffer from diminishing returns. But if a player wanted it, and it would suit the character, I wouldn't say no - the rules were not created to force anyone to take large complications - it only counters the fact that until I've come up with it, noone even considered them an option - my old players and fresh ones alike. Edit: I can sum it up like this: players (again - those I've played with, maybe there are people who think differently) assess complications by thinking "can I deal with this somehow?". And usually don't pick complications that they think will overcome them (secret which upon reveal would get the character killed, and could not be buried deep in a graveyard, a very restrictive code of honor, complete nonviolence etc., cancer, etc.) unless that is the goal of the character. They will accept many complications if they can be dealt with somehow, even if it will be hard and will force the character to make hard choices. On the other hand, if they see that they are being rewared for such a "hard" complication, which includes the risk that it will lead to heroes demise, they are often willing to risk it (I'm a bit more powerful than all those mortals, so 1) maybe I'll manage, 2) it'll be worth it even if I don't). In terms of limitations - I think limiting defenses is not the way to go. "Not against silver" on the vampires natural defenses would cause several issues: - the vampire would be killed outright by a few silver attacks made by any non-mook NPC, - the power would have to be created differently (undead body has ED, PD, power def and mental def in it in this world), possibly by splitting it into two powers, but that issue is minor, - it would make no thematic sense, Another thing - he is hurt by silver. It's the only thing that causes pain to him - that's why he is vulnerable. He protects himself just to be able to "soak" as much of the damage as possible. This has a frightening effect. Limitation on power would not be able to model that. He is as resistant to silver as anyone - it's just the excruciating pain he feels when silver pierces his skin. Another types of disads that I would allow to follow this rule? Unluck would qualify in most cases - as for the rest, depends on the character, as I've said. A total, complete CvK might qualify quite often, but it depends on the character in question. Susceptibility will qualify more often than not if it is common, as would Dread ("psychological" (divine, magical curse?) complication preventing character from getting close to certain objects - like undead not being able to get close to a person who, with faith in its protection, holds a holy symbol), sometimes Dependency which may be felt during proloned combat (by prolonged I don't mean "five turns", I mean more like "two-three fights in a scope of 2 hours" might qualify (for example - biotics from Mass Effect that is dependent on a painmed injector, without which he suffers seizures), some instances of Enraged might be ok, as would many physical complications (ham fisted, hemophilia, being very fat, very skinny (as "negative" Knockback Resistance), weak body structure ("negative" Damage Negation). But we (me and my players) have most often applied this rules to Vulnerability and Susceptibility.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems Well, it's nice to hear someone shares my line of thinking. My "doesn't count against complication pool" rule worked very well in GURPS for many years (and was even incorporated into the game system itself in 4th edition, though I highly doubt if it was because of my thread about it on the forum), but it's hard to say if (and how) it will work in HERO. I don't think it will be all that different (GURPS method of modeling disadvantages and HERO complications work alike, have similar values and I've discovered about 99% of GURPS disads transfer perfectly into HERO). Right now, my players feel that it's ok, but they are used to the old ways, so we'll just have to test this in play some more - if the vampire player who uses this rule to decrease his racial package deal cost (by 30 points total) will come out too powerful, we will start thinking.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems That's what I said - being vulnerable to common materials is substantially different than being vulnerable to uncommon/rare ones. According to the HERO system - none. You don't get a stronger character for picking complications. You get a weaker character if you don't. This is not the same - in a 400/75 campaign, 400 points is the norm. If you pick only 25 points in complications, "not having" 50 points of complications is regarded as an advantage. Picking more complications does nothing. Maybe we have different experience in this matter. Of all people I've played with, noone ever took anything that has a common effect / substance in it unless he felt that he gets something in return for picking such a complication. It doesn't require much gameplay experience to know that three 5-point complications do not impair the character in the same way as one 15-point complication does unless the GM is willing to be cruel about it. I was not talking about individual situations of two characters in my current campaign. The vamp in my current campaign is balanced by this vulnerabilities. Yes he does. It is he who is attacked - 8 of 10 times, it's NPCs who start combat, not players. He is often attacked with silver because everyone who cares to attack him knows, after many, many sessions, that he is a vamprie, and thus, vulnerable to silver. In his situation, I regard silver as common attack. I'm not saying that his vulnerability is worth more than the points mentioned under complication. I'm not even saying that it's something that will certainly kill him. All I'm saying is that I don't treat this complication the same way as his DNPCs. It's not - that's what I'm saying. There's no difference between protecting a PC, DNPC or any NPC friend you are attached to or even any NPC that you are supposed to save during a mission/quest/whatever. Yet you get "complication points" for the DNPC, and not for the rest. And I have nothing against it - but I just wouldn't say that 10-point DNPCs are the same as 10-point Common Vulnerability or buying back SPD. It's worth the same as a complication, but the first disadvantage is subject to diminishing returns on plot-hook-situation-based-roleplaying-complications, while the second one is purely a biological/physical disadvantage. Which brings me to the point - the only thing I'm saying is that I regard some complications the same way as buying back stats - if you buy back 1 SPD, you don't have a 10-point complication. You just get 10 points back. If you buy back any characteristic, it's the same. I just think that some complications in some cases should be treated the same way. I was giving an example from fiction, not talking about a particular character. Most of my campaign vampires are not destroyed by sunlight. As I've said, I hate 0/1 disadvantages - disadvantages that, if they ever come into play, kill the character (get hit by X and die, get captured and die because you lack something that keeps you alive, wear a rebreather mask because you breathe helium - have the mask destroyed and die etc.). So, to sum up: I'm not saying that complications are not worth the points they are listed to be worth. If I think that complication will not limit the character in a listed way, we talk this over with the player and we agree on some rational value. I've never had to argue with any of my players about this. I'm also not saying that complications do not cause complications, or that some cause more than they should or less than they should, subject to genre - but these things are handled by generic descriptions and do not cause issues. All I'm saying is that there are some complications I regard as not being subject to the rule "complications above limit don't do anything" the same way buying back 1 point of OCV doesn't give a 5 point complication but -5 points. If you have a 400/75 character and buy back 1 SPD, you get 10 points back. If you pick less than 66 points of complications, you didn't actually gain anything - and only if you pick all 75, you get a 410/75 character. In my books, some disadvantages should work the same. If you pick a character with a vulnerability to common attack (let's say piercing), and pick all complications to the limit, I will still give you points the for vulnerability, while I wouldn't give you more for a Social Complication. That is all I'm saying. It's (I think) almost the same Lucius is saying, but he talks math while I talk justification, at least that's how I understand it. Maybe I'm just unable to describe what I mean well enough if noone seems to adress what I mean :-) if so, I'm sorry, I can't really describe this to be more comprehendable. Edit: I think Lucius, on the same basis, is drawing somewhat different conclusions. While I just allow some complications (Unluck would certainly be one of them in almost any case) to give points after "complication limit" is reached, Lucius is certain that some complications are really worth less than others / should be priced differently?. But I don't know what he wants to do about this

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems That is not exactly why I put disadvantages in two groups. Vulnerability to a rare substance wouldn't land in the "mechanical" group, as it would rarely come into play. I take my picks on case-by-case basis - the division is created for players (and everyone who reads about the idea) to know that some "mechanical" disadvantages of their characters that are constantly in play are worth taking, because having them alongside other complications gives some points back. Also, if a race is vulnerable to something (werewolves and vampires to silver, fey creatures to cold iron or what have you), this disadvantage "stays" with the character the same way bought back MDCV or lower-than-average STR does. It is not the question of how hindering the complication is - it's how often it comes into play. A Dependant can be extremely hindering. How often? Not often. Does taking a dependant justify stronger character? No. Does taking any complication that comes to play from time to time justify a character being stronger? No. Are there complications that make the character, as he is, with his abilities, weaker all the time? Yes there are. What to do? Possibly nothing, but does not having complications justify weaker character? Certainly. So if not having complications can justify being weaker (not having disadvantages is an advantage in itself), then what complications would justify a stronger character? Those "mechanical", which exist outside of roleplaying and can be measured in making a character weaker. But the unresolved question for me (and my players) was "what if my character should be vulnerable to something?" And something that is not rare or even uncommon to see in the setting. Noone I know would play a character with vulnerability to common attacks. Why? Because you can pick other disads, that are in total worth the same, but don't hinder you as often, even if they are quite severe. And if you take a vulnerability to a common attack, you are inviting death to come for you. So to encourage such complications (and picking races who have them), they must do something. If they are constant, and the character is at least 90% of the time weaker because of them, why not give the player bonus points? That division is not artificial, but my generalization of what would be in the first group most of the time, and what would most of the time be in the second group probably is. I just think, based on experience as a GM, that there will always be risk and decision involved - if you can include complications in what happens - all the better. But if no PC had dependents, and I wanted to see how they handle some rescuing, I'd just kidnap any NPC who is important to the players. They would risk all the same - if they fail, the failure is not lesser because the character who died wasn't a DNPC. If no character is a pacifist, I may still test how far they will go, how much are they willing to sacrifice. Most of my players throughout the years prefered not to pick disadvantages which would solve how far they are willing to go to still have a dilema other than "well my character would never kill, so I'm powerless here". I just think that complications only point to players taste in what he wants to have issues with in play. If he takes DNPCs, I know what kind of adventures will be connected to it. After 10 years of gaming, I think most of my players also realise what it means. If a player takes Secret ID, we know that he will have to defend his privacy many times. If he takes CvK (never happend, but if it would happen) he knows he will be placed in situations where killing would be the simple and wise choice and he has to think of something different. If he didn't have any of the above, would that mean he doesn't have anything hindering him? All his life is a road of sweet success without dilemas? No it isn't. Complications only sanction what was there for years of roleplaying in systems that had no complications / disadvantage system - the fact that the GM will try, from time to time, to create a hard situation, where the choices are hard and the consequences are hard. System of complications just makes it easier for the GM to think of something and include it, and there is a great chance that such choice of situations will be fun for the players (they pick the complications after all). It, at the very least, gives the GM a hint "so here's what you can do to make this choice hard for this character" and stimulate good roleplaying oportunities. But I needed something that would encourage picking serious complications that wouldn't actually be there in a complication-free game. Noone wanted to play blind people in Warhammer. Why? Because they didn't get anything from the fact that they can't see. The same goes for people with one hand, one eye, vulnerable to silver, wood or what have you. The balance was thus ruined - the handicaped character wasn't fun to play - he was always lagging behind. Say, if character A has a wife and two children somewhere and character B is vulnerable to things that pierce his skin - would character B not be hindered by character's A complication? He would - he would aid his friend in rescuing his wife and children if a situation arised and they were in danger. Would character A be hindered by character's B vulnerability? No - unless you count "my friend is kissing the dirt so I have to fight you alone" as hindrance (as if that doesn't happen often enough already without any special disads). Would you allow character B to take character's A family as dependents? Would character B even want that? I think no. He may not even care about them - it is his friendship with A that is important. If A had a debt or problems with mombsters, he would also help. If character A has a duty to his church, and character B has no duty, and church calls for aid (say it's a fantasy setting), would character B not go? He would go, because his friend asks him to go. The player would decide to go because they are a team and this is an adventure. Is it the same for him? Probably not, because he doesn't suffer the consequences of failure (and probably also doesn't benefit as much from success). Does that duty make character A limited? Yes. Does it limit character B? Kind of. But if there were no duty, wouldn't they go on a mission? They probably would, because that's what the game is about - doing something, not sitting in a tavern the whole session being safe and sound. Does that complication actually change anything? Not exactly. It's fun, it aids roleplaying, but it isn't, in its basis, something that limits the character in a hard-coded way. I know it's hard to show the difference, but I hope you get the idea about what I mean from this examples. Many psychological or social complications stacked I've never liked. If players have too many of them, they stop to be worth it. But some complications, no matter how many you have already, are still impairing your character. And since I generally don't like complications that are 1/0 in effect ("you either spend every night in a coffin or you will die after a short while, so you die if you get captured, and you are often captured if deafeated, thus - you will die if defeated" - this is my favourite of such complications), I had to figure something out, especially for many beings that exist in fiction, which are very powerful, yet also limited and powerless in some circumstances. I guess vampires wouldn't need all that shapeshifting, regeneration, speed, strenght and agility if not for the fact that few simple silver bullets (or "holy" or "gralic-imbued" or what have you) or few beams of sunlight (in most fiction) can put them down. If there would never be adventures about your complication, I would probably count it as "mechanical" (As bad name as any, by the way - I have no good way to call them). There are no epic tales about a guy who bursts with energy when he is shot (like Pulsar) that start with "so since Pulsar is vulnerable to piercing, one day...". Well, maybe except gritty medieval times, where there are adventures that begin with "you wake up with a terrible cough - you find out that you are coughing blood and it stinks like hell". Such complications exist not in the base of roleplaying (and are as limiting as their worth, the situation and dramatic purposes call for) but in the base of game mechanics. "I get more damage from X" is certainly not a roleplaying effect (though it may lead to interesting situations just as any complication can - I can imagine a "good" version of Pulsar throwing himself between a gun and an innocent being knowing he will get hurt bad). Such complications truly hinder the character, always, no matter what is going on. But if a specific complication has this effect usually depend on the character in question. After giving it some thinking, I think CvK would likely be such a limitation more often than not. I never overdo this rule though - 20-30 points in a 400 point game would be the top one could get from this "rule". And in the campaign I'm running in HERO, only racial package deals count. Otherwise, all of my players would play humans ("what the heck do I need this ability to regenerate 1 HP per day for? and the tail? it's a waste of points - I'd rather make a coherent character out of it - I like the race, I like how it looks and their culture, but their abilities are far away from my concept and will really be useless 90% of the time. Wait, I'm not wasting 20 points because they are vulnerable to bacteria in wood? Ok, I can manage that - I'll still have the points to get the abilities this character needs. I'll just try to avoid arrows and spears").

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems And these examples show where such complications might be worth points (instead of counting in the "complications pool") in my books. I'm not really into the "good GM" argument - I don't see how this has anything to do with the issue. Being a good GM and finding interesting way to play with complications the PCs have and their effect on their powers are not actually connected in my mind. Unless you imply that only bad GMs count some complications as not having any effect on how powerful the character is - then I've been a bad GM my entire life. I've even allowed players to have a family without paying for a DNPC (called "Dependent" in GURPS) so that he doesn't have to spend a lot of time and effort to protect them ;-) Some complications are seriously impairing (and I would give a PC points for them even if they would be above complication limit) and some are not (and wouldn't count in my books). In many campaigns, the distinction is not needed. The question is not if or how complications are limiting - all of them are, and all of them can be creatively used by the GM. The question is if their system can be modeled - in my opinion, it can be, but only to the side of "what happens if my character should have more complications than the campaign average?". As for the DNPC / deathtrap issue, you are right, but my players protect their DNPCs very well since I've used a similar idea some years ago (three opponents PC fought with at that time kidnapped their DNPCs and put them in 3 locations, while invading their home for tech and intel - they had to choose where to be, so they lost their HQ and one DNPC). Having them kidnapped "just because" right now would ruin willing suspension of disbelief and be completely irrational (though I've reduced their DNPCs value because of this fact). If someone goes after them, they usually never reach them. This had been used by PCs enemies (fake an attack on PCs "base" so that they show up to protect their families, while doing the evil stuff). Does this limit power? In my opinion? No. Does being "out of the fight" because a DNPC make hero less powerful every battle? No. It happens - that's the reason it's a complication and it counts as one. But that wouldn't be a reason for me to extend the rules to allow the player to take points for it if he was above the limit. In my games, having a DNPC usually means a character spends serious time and effort to protect him/her from harm, not only act when he/she is kidnapped or in danger. Players dictate how complications are used most of the time - I won't break believability for the sake of "making the character feel the complications in this particular way because I want to". That is what I mean by "cruelty". If, despite all the effort (and good ideas) on part of the PCs, their DNPCs disappear from their HQ and are put into a deathtrap, that is just plain stupid. As for the "I can Mindread and Mindbend but I won't" or "I have the power but I will never use it to kill" or "I can create everything but I will never use it to accumulate wealth because I think it's not fair" - that would be a justification for not having a perk/power a character should have or a limitation on power in my books, not a complication per se. If a character never uses the power (and he doesn't even intimidate his foes with it), he shouldn't pay for it. If he has it, but he never uses it except by threatening to use it, he should pay something, but not the full value. As for the CvK - in some campaigns it might be just as impairing as you say, in some, it may be not (especially if the character has a reliable way of putting someone down without risking his death). For Superman, I'd give points for CvK if he exceeded limitations total, for "a guy with ZONK beam which causes loss of consciousness when it hits" I would not. Many comicbook characters have complications which truly limit their behavior - in games, players usually pick something that is limiting (if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a complication), but something they can live with. A character that can either kill or lightly wound would not have CvK unless the player had to take it. If he had to, I wouldn't mind giving him some more points for it to make up for this, if he had his "complication pool" full. I don't argue that some complications are useless and others are not - you seem to prove that that's not the case. I never said it was. I am just willing to give some characters additional points for exceeding complication total, while I am not willing to do that for other characters. I just noted that some complications usually belong to one group, while some to the other. From experience I can tell that "vulnerability" is nearly always in the second group, while various "codes of honor" are in the first along with DNPCs, Reputations and Social Disadvantages which don't appear every single session. In my current campaign, I allowed a vampire reduce his package deal cost because of his vampiric disadvantages (he would be very happy to be less powerful and get rid of those). On the other hand, he has his own 75 points of limitations just as the other character and they are heavily limited by those complications. If he had another code of honor or social complication, I wouldn't increase his total. Had he taken CvK for some bizzare reason, I wouldn't increase his total (he has powers to neutralize an opponent without killing him) - he already has quite enough psychological complications for me to work with, I don't think another would matter. Had he taken a greater vulnerability to fire, I would. Because I think vulnerability to fire and "I get few more points" balance out without making him a cripple. I may be wrong about CvK however - I confess that none of my players ever took any such disadvantage. I have one player who frequently takes "Cannot harm innocents, and even do anything that leads to innocents being harmed", but not more. YMMV.

Re: Disadvantages/Complication Systems I agree - but my point is that there are significant differences between "behavior limiting" complications and those that directly limit someones powers. The first type I use as ploot hooks (or take advantage of them during adventures to design interesting situations), but these limits don't make the character more or less powerful (At least in my experience). They influence roleplaying - adventures, how they go, what heroes do, not their power. They may be limiting in combat and even lead to a heroes demise (sacrificing himself for a loved one etc.), but most of the time, they don't influence how powerful the character is. The second type limits powers directly. If I am vulnerable to silver, then I am easier to kill than I would normaly be by anyone who knows about my vulnerability and cares to use silver. This, in my opinion, usually justifies additional points (like reducing the cost of a package deal). I know this won't work for anyone, but in my campaigns there are usually some powerful races with certain vulnerabilities or dependencies that just have to be playable. And I think complications that limit power justify some increased power, when the effects can't be modeled with power limitations. For example, "young werewolf is more powerful than a human being, but he is also vulnerable to silver, which makes them more or less even in overall, and the young werewolf is less powerful than a human armed with a gun with silver bullets". As for using complications in play - I tend to not be cruel about it - that's all. I use the rules for "limiting" complications as rough guidelines - maybe that's because in my experience, many players avoid certain types of complications, even appropriate ones, because they know that the GM will be cruel about it and they are not willing to accept as much trouble as the complication gives because it won't be fun for them. Mandatory complications are that - you pick them to make a character believable, interesting. They are always there and my players always know this, they roleplay their complications very well. But if I don't feel like throwing a "complicated" situation at the players during play, I don't, even if I somehow, by the rules "should". I just think that limiting complications create the character, and aid roleplaying, but I don't see them as "since it's worth 10 points, you must always suffer for it". I make the characters suffer for power limitations though ;p Of course - if a complication is worth 10 points, and the other 5 points, the first one will be more painful to have. If a player takes a complications that appears frequently, it will appear frequently. If he makes it very impairing, it will be. I just won't be cruel about it.