More Complications, Please

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The variable costing is more like Ed 2/3. 1st and 2nd Ed were "Champions", and did not have other genres represented.

 

I remember Champions, Champions II and Champions III, but II and III were not really "editions" they were "additions" with lots of new Powers etc. added on. Basically, supplements to Champions.

 

The first edition I remember being referred to as such was 4th. So I tend to think of the editions as 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th.

 

If there was ever a 2nd or 3rd edition, they happend without me noticing.

 

As I recall, there was no maximum disad's in early editions, but there was a diminishing return. The first two disad's from any catagory had full value, the next two had half value, the two after that 1/4 value and so on.

 

"And so on" was actually zero - so you could have a total of 6 Disadvantages (in a given category) that got you points.

 

(Unless I'm misremembering, which has been known to happen with earlier editions)

 

I'm not sure how strongly I want to argue it, but I will ask if it's not possible that some kind of "diminishing returns" set up would accurately reflect the difficulty the person running the game has in working all those Complications in at full value.

 

Whether they are overvalued can only be determined in comparison to other complications (and, if we think they are simply a way to "sell back" benefits to justify having other benefits, against assets).

 

However, if we decided that "story element" disad's like Hunted, Watched and DNPC have no value because the characters will always have adversaries and additional cast anyway, then I suspect it becomes much easier for you to fit your desired level of complications into 75 points. Of course, we also remove a motivation for players to define such elements.

 

And on the other hand, putting a value on them - especially an inflated value - encourages players to "overdefine." I don't think many people want to deal with juggling Problem Child's six Hunteds or dozen DNPCs, at one extreme. But at the other, plenty of players would probably never include an enemy or a dependent unless there's a compensatory advantage to it.

 

Like most such questions, this comes back to the game in question. I could spend 10 points on Interaction skills, and be playing a Dungeon Crawl game where interaction rarely, if ever, happens, but Knobby Foot, my DNPC Torchbearer still regularly needs rescuing from the monsters. Or the game could be a world travelling superspy game, and my Area and Culture Knowledges I took with that extra 10 points become regularly useful, while my Spinster Aunt who lives in Cincinatti rarely, if ever, appears because we're globetrotting most of the time.

 

Of course it depends on the game. I'm talking in general. I probably expressed myself carelessly.

 

And while it may be a subjective call, I think the widespread perception that someone with more points for Complications than their peers is "getting away with something" and someone with fewer is "gimping themselves" supports the idea that Complications, in general, are seen as having an inflated value as compared to Assets - otherwise, it would not be an issue.

 

My character got points for "Distrustful of Elves", so even after years of game time, and the Elven PC proving his worth time and again, right up to the point of saving my life a dozen times, at massive risk to his own, I'll still look at him and say "Shifty Elf - can't trust him as far as you can throw him".

 

Uh, you haven't known people like that?

 

Not to mention the also all too common phenomenon of someone who has one or more friends they do trust who are Black/White/gay/Jewish/Kentuckian/whatever and make an exception for that person or persons while continuing to hate, fear, or despise the group as a whole.

 

Uh, most people you know are like that?

 

Most? No, thankfully. But enough, unfortunately, that it does not strain my credulity to meet it in fiction or game.

Enough so that I find it hard to believe that you are totally unacquainted with any.

 

Which leads us back to the dichotomy that points are awarded for having the backstory ab initio but not if it develops in play.

 

And leads me back to Ghost Angel's vision of the character, especially the Complications, being essentially "fluid."

 

Your character comes equipped with 2 DNPC's, so you start with 25 extra points. Over the course of a dozen game sessions, my character befriends various characters we meet with, and they start making regular appearances in future scenarios. Your character protects his kid sister and his spinster aunt, but just shrugs if someone else is endangered, or even tries to interact with him. Mine protects all the various bystanders we encounter, and has his life complicated out of combat by over a dozen NPC's introduced over the course of the game. How is it appropriate that your character gets more points than mine for complications - my character has the more complicated in game backstory now.

 

1. One might argue that your character has, or should have, a Pscyh Complication mine doesnt.

 

2. One might argue that your character is also developing a lot of alliances and contacts that mine hasn't.

 

In fact - and I'm not sure if this has a bearing on how I think about Complications - but I'm still not 100% sold on the idea of "Contacts" as something you pay points for, in the way they seem to be intended to be used. I tend to think that sort of thing belongs under background story and roleplaying, "off the books," in most cases. For one thing, most Contacts should sometimes be calling you up for help rather than always the other way around.

 

Age is a subsidiary of NCM, which was taken pretty much exclusively by characters it had little or no impact on. Age didn't mean "I have a drawback", it meant "certain game elements will cost more" and more to the point "I didn't buy them, so I'm not really disadfvantaged, but the points are free". More commonly, Age meant "my character needs the stats he can now buy up higher more than he needs the ones which are now more restricted".

 

That's why I describe dropping it as a benefit of the New Dispensation. No one argued harder than I that "Normal Characteristic Maxima" and its spawn were misbegotten munchkin-bait. (Once I came around to that position.)

 

Nothing prevents either approach in practice. You could define all the above as physical limitations (and the GM could mechanically treat them exactly the same) or as you have done.

 

However, representing them as you have done above can be motivated by more precisely defining the character, or simply by a desire to shave more points out of the system. I like the former. The latter, not so much. In fact, I prefer the idea of a precise mechanical definition if you want more points, so the drawbacks are crystal clear and are not as easy to gloss over in play with that wiggle room you describe.

 

It might be a question of who's doing the wriggling. I was thinking less in terms of the player trying to minimize the effect, than in terms of applying "common and dramatic sense" penalties - for instance, if the party is all exposed to a disease and must make CON rolls, and I'm told mine is at -2, I can point to the sheet and say "nothing justifies that." But a more fuzzily defined Physical Limitation: Old Geezer would be all the justification you need.

 

The drawback to THAT of course is that it makes the person running the game work harder to think of ways to apply the Complication. So I don't think it's totally clear cut that one way is preferable to the other.

 

But too many "fuzzy" Disads getting overlooked or used laxly may be part of the "infaltionary" problem of Liabilities being overvalued compared to Assets.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Psychological Complication: Palindromedary

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I remember Champions, Champions II and Champions III, but II and III were not really "editions" they were "additions" with lots of new Powers etc. added on. Basically, supplements to Champions.

 

The first edition I remember being referred to as such was 4th. So I tend to think of the editions as 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th.

 

Champions 1st Ed was 64 pages long. Champions 2nd Ed was 80 pages long. During that Ed, the first other Hero games (Danger international and Justice inc., followed by Fantasy Hero), as well as the supplements Champions II and III, were published. Chamions 3rd Ed was squarebound, I think (never got that edition, for some reason). 4th Ed was the Big Blue Book, and the first "Hero as a System" Edition.

 

And on the other hand' date=' putting a value on them - especially an inflated value - encourages players to "overdefine." I don't think many people want to deal with juggling Problem Child's six Hunteds or dozen DNPCs, at one extreme. But at the other, plenty of players would probably never include an enemy or a dependent unless there's a compensatory advantage to it. [/quote']

 

Have the Hunteds come after the character alone, and not the team, and the issue likely goes away. To some extent, this supports your assertion that the points are overvalued, or the complication underplayed. If the Hunted really shows up 25% of the time (more if the roll is better than 8-) and is more powerful than the character, and desires his death, how long should the character reasonably survive?

 

1. One might argue that your character has' date=' or should have, a Pscyh Complication mine doesnt.[/quote']

 

Perhaps. Or maybe yours should have "difficuly forming new relationships". But the fact remains my character has all these new DNPC's acquired in play and yours doesn't. Why do you get points for having 2 DNPC's from the outset, but my six acquired in play give me no extra points?

 

2. One might argue that your character is also developing a lot of alliances and contacts that mine hasn't.

 

The rules tell me if I want a contact I pay for it. Since I didn't pay for it, no benefits.

 

In fact - and I'm not sure if this has a bearing on how I think about Complications - but I'm still not 100% sold on the idea of "Contacts" as something you pay points for' date=' in the way they seem to be intended to be used. I tend to think that sort of thing belongs under background story and roleplaying, "off the books," in most cases. For one thing, most Contacts should sometimes be calling [i']you[/i] up for help rather than always the other way around.

 

That sounds like the same character is a Contact and a DNPC, which is likely the way a lot of these should be simulated. Of course, if I have no DNPC's, no Subject to Order, etc., then will the game have no adventures he is involved in and my character will just sit at home and watch others' adventures on TV? I rather suspect the GM will find ways to involve the characters. Just like the characters with a SuperJet or a Megascale teleport satellite get summoned to Tokyo on short notice, but those that get around on a motorcycle don't have an "adventure" consisting of watching the battle on TV, or arriving hours after the scenario has resolved itself.

 

It might be a question of who's doing the wriggling. I was thinking less in terms of the player trying to minimize the effect' date=' than in terms of applying "common and dramatic sense" penalties - for instance, if the party is all exposed to a disease and must make CON rolls, and I'm told mine is at -2, I can point to the sheet and say "nothing justifies that." But a more fuzzily defined Physical Limitation: Old Geezer would be all the justification you need. [/quote']

 

Or you can argue that, if your CON doesn't count for CON rolls, you should get a limitation on your CON.

 

In any case, nothing stops you writing a backstory, or a Complication, of "Old Geezer" without getting extra points for it. If it's part of the character, write it down and play to it. Shouldn't it also mean you have a much broader array of contacts and experiences than those young whippersnapper characters? Maybe you should have to pay for "Old Geezer".

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Champions 1st Ed was 64 pages long. Champions 2nd Ed was 80 pages long. During that Ed' date=' the first other Hero games (Danger international and Justice inc., followed by Fantasy Hero), as well as the supplements Champions II and III, were published. Chamions 3rd Ed was squarebound, I think (never got that edition, for some reason). 4th Ed was the Big Blue Book, and the first "Hero as a System" Edition.[/quote']

 

Third Edition Champions was indeed a square-bound typeset book. It also had the three superheroes on the cover.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

My point is that all this talk of Complications/Disadvantages comes off as a (unintendedly) pretentious zeitgeist that seems to be offhandedly saying that only Complications/Disadvantages count towards defining a character - the rest may as well be cookie cutter.

 

Probably just me.

 

*shrugs*

 

Also, I don't recall being very much involved in the Disadvantages discussion for 6e.

 

You probably mean me. Fair enough but, similar to how I feel art is only achieved by effort within self-imposed restraints and heroism isn't defined by how much power you can bring to bear but how you achieve despite your own limitations, role-playing is a melding of improvisational art and the heroic journey for me. Different people game differently. If everyone at your table is having a good time, then you're doing it right.

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The rules tell me if I want a contact I pay for it. Since I didn't pay for it, no benefits.

 

The same rules say that those characters you're referring to as DNPCs, aren't.

 

If they're not "really" your Contacts, then they're not "really" DNPC either - you're just choosing to act like they are.

 

Or you can argue that, if your CON doesn't count for CON rolls, you should get a limitation on your CON.

 

I'm already, on this particular character, putting Limitations on STR and movement.

 

And the Limitation would probably be -0 anyway.

 

And even if I took it - what if I failed to think of some other aspect of my character's age and history that might reasonably come up? The whole point of the indeterminate, or "fuzzy" Complication, is that you can fill in the details as you go. The "risk" is in those details never getting filled out...

 

Of course, as you point out, sometimes that kind of thing can have benefits too. On one hand, he will often be the oldest person around, especially if he's at one of the aviation events, which sounds like Distinctive Features:

"I'm looking for one of the pilots, walks with a cane, old enough to be your grandpere - yeah, I figured there'd be only one man here matching that...."

but in his setting (Pulp Hero) age might also be like a "Perk" in that he'll be automatically entitled to an extra measure of respect.

He's got a lifetime of friends behind him - and a lifetime of enemies.

"Esterhazy! He swore revenge on me in Tunis. Go over my aircraft bolt by bolt, he's not above sabotage."

 

Much to think about....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Reputation: Always accompanied by a palindromedary

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

While I think all characters should have a certain skeleton of definition in place at the beginning of play, I do think there is something to be said for fleshing out the details of personality etcetera during play. This is doubly true when the group exceeds 2-3 headlining PCs with competing back stories. I've found, when players build rococo back stories and personas its because they plan on insisting all those elements become major plot points - at which point they should be running the game themselves. I'm all for stage time and character arcs, but not when they start derailing the overall campaign (which has other people playing in it). Its not such a big deal in solo games or small groups, but when you have 4+ competing, sometimes conflicting, story arcs it can become difficult to dedicate any time to the central plot. You can always not have one, but constantly bending over backwards to run the stories the players backloaded into their characters can get old after a while. Also, when players are fleshing out their characters (beyond the initial skeleton) during play it adds a certain amount of flexibility to the game - if the GM is also flexible. In my PBEM the player is undercover in his old stomping ground and, as things unfolded, he threw an ex girlfriend (not part of the original back story) who might be useful as a contact at me. It was up to me to decide and flesh her out, but through some give and take during play, we have an interesting piece of the character's story that came out during play and benefited the game. The character was cool enough that she'll recur as an NPC driving a different plot and giving the player a headache in the process (this is a solo game). I'm not saying detailed back stories and personas are bad - they can be interesting and work well - but I am saying they aren't the only way to attack a good character. Some of my best, most vibrant characters are defined by things that weren't a part of their original (often more robust than need be) conception - and transformed into something more interesting than I'd originally intended as a result.

[rjcurrie]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Third Edition Champions was indeed a square-bound typeset book. It also had the three superheroes on the cover.

 

Actually, there were two versions of 3e. One was square-bound. The other was a box set that had two stapled books: the rules and a sourcebook. It was the same content, just packaged differently.

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Actually' date=' there were two versions of 3e. One was square-bound. The other was a box set that had two stapled books: the rules and a sourcebook. It was the same content, just packaged differently.[/quote']

 

Hunh, I never recall seeing that one.

[Escafarc]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The boxxed set had a copy of The Island of Dr. Destroyer and a two-sided battle mat too.

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The boxxed set had a copy of The Island of Dr. Destroyer and a two-sided battle mat too.

 

Perhaps i thought that was an earlier edition. No matter.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Actually' date=' there were two versions of 3e. One was square-bound. The other was a box set that had two stapled books: the rules and a sourcebook. It was the same content, just packaged differently.[/quote']

 

Ah, the good old days, when you got to crack a box open and take the goodies out. Books, maps, dice, crayons. Today the rules won't fit in the box.

[Susano]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

They don't even bother with a box these days. Unless you're FFG.

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

They don't even both with a box these days. Unless you're FFG.

 

I'm showing my age, I guess.

 

I do wonder, occasionally, when it was, exactly, that roleplaying game manuals started competing with volumes of tort law.

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

For the record - RE Complications.

 

I don't advocate minimums, or maximums, or even numbers. I advocate you utilize the system how you want it to be utilized. If you think your game (and your GM can handle) 200 points of Complications for each player at the table - rock it. If the GM wants a very focused game and says to choose 3-5 Complications you want to have a heavy impact (be the main drive of the story) then rock that too.

 

There is no right answer, and it's likely to change every time you change games and genres and styles.

 

As for the character I built on three words: "wants to fly" --- yeah sure I added Disads to the character, but only to fill in numbers to be honest. They had a Hunted that the GM used, it was neat, but meant nothing to the core concept of the character. They had some personality traits, none of which could compete with the core tenant of "wants to fly" - every action, every word, every thought and every decision the character made revolved around wanting to not be on the ground. I could have added 3000 more Disads and none would have impacted anything nearly as much as that core aspect. It WAS The character plain and simple. Everything else was an afterthought. You don't NEED complications. You need a personality.

[The Main Man]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

You probably mean me. Fair enough but' date=' similar to how I feel art is only achieved by effort within self-imposed restraints and heroism isn't defined by how much power you can bring to bear but how you achieve despite your own limitations, role-playing is a melding of improvisational art and the heroic journey for me. Different people game differently. If everyone at your table is having a good time, then you're doing it right.[/quote']

 

Maybe, but I'm too lazy to check and the post wasn't specifically directed at anyone.

 

I'm not saying that Complications/Disadvantages are not vital to a character but rather that they are not more vital to a character than any other element.

 

I follow that logic by saying that how a character applies their abilities, whether adequate or not, to any given situation/obstacle is what truly defines them rather than the obstacle by itself.

 

I would say that just as a hero is defined by their obstacles, obstacles are defined by the effort it takes to overcome them.

 

Let me put that another way: if a hero normally has enormous powers, they are suddenly stripped of them, but they still overcome obstacles then it speaks for the hero's abilities but in the end the obstacle was only considerable because the hero was effectively neutered.

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Crossposted

 

To some extent, the fact that secret ID's have been a comic book trope for so long contributes to this. We've seen a lot of the secret ID stories, so they don't get done as much. Look at the Silver Age DC books, and often the threat to the character's secret ID was far more significant than the threat posed by the villain of the story (if there even was a villain).

 

Public ID means people can find you? oooo scary. I doubt you would have enjoyed the game much if your character just hid from all forms of adversity and you never had to roll a die or role play your reaction to a challenge.

 

Also,I don't think a lot of comic characters have Public ID's. The Hulk? Sure, everyone recognizes him, but the army has to search for him - they don't know where to find him at any given time. I think the 10 point "public ID" reflects the comic version - the character is easily recognized, but is not always in the public eye.

 

Like most things, the real value of these items is set by the game style far more than by the book rules. I dislike using the book value for complications as an automatic feature. Look at the mechanic and build it to reflect how often you view the issue as impacting the game, and how severe the consequences are. If you expect your secret ID will only rarely be an issue, and it will be a minor one, price the Social Complication on that basis. If your Overconfidence is not Strong, but Overwhelming (no books; exact term slips my mind; Total Commitment, maybe), note that and take the extra 5 points. And then play it out accordingly.

 

We had a player with the highest level Psych on his Overconfidence. He played to it. He backed down from no one and nothing. He would not flee a combat. At various times, he indicated his DCV was 4 (followed by "Huh? What's your DEX" "23 - but I've never even heard of this guy - there's no way he can do any serious damage, so why put any effort into avoiding him?) and asked if he could make an Ego roll in order to consider Dodging Firewing's next attack, after having challlenged him to single combat (he made the Ego roll, which enabled him to be missed and got him through post-segment 12; he lost the fight, but he gained the rest of the team time to deal with the mission-critical objective, and his honourable fight earned some respect from Firewing). That extra 5 point complication was well earned, and enriched the campaign for everyone - how many characters have moments like that remembered 10 to 20 years later?

 

LA

 

p

[The Main Man]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Here's a thought that I have lately had: I am a fan of using Group Templates.

 

I got to thinking that a Group Template could be represented by, among other things, appropriate Complications, and that players have a particular total of Complications Points to reach in addition to those that they acquire from the group template itself.

[dsatow]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Sorry if this has already been noted, but I don't remember it saying anywhere in the 6e books that you can't have more complications. It's just that you do not get points for them.

[The Main Man]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'm pretty sure that it is mentioned in it.

 

I don't think that anyone is arguing with the notion that Complications totals are set in stone, just that many think that the recommended limits are a tad low.

 

 

I've also been entertaining the idea of using Complications for generating Heroic Action Points.

[dmjalund]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I guess a low amount of Complications just means that someone who wants complications won't be that much more powerful than someone who doesn't

[Phil]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'm slightly surprised this has even come up. I imagined that people would see this as liberating, meaning they don't have to overload characters with unnecessary complications that don't reflect the genre just to squeeze a few more points out of the game. It's one of the changes in 6th that I whole-heartedly support.

 

The other aspect of complications that I love is the slight change in terminology. You now have 400 points, but lose 50 points if you don't have complications, rather than a 350 character who gains 50 from complications. It's a subtle difference, but it reflects the fact that complications are rewarding you for essential roleplaying hooks, not a way of gaining extra points by layering difficulties to an increasingly absurd level.

[incrdbil]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I like the new number. I think its getting closer to actually reflecting the amount of complications that can be adequately featured in a medium or larger sized group.

 

Complications should be viewed as requests by the player. "These are some of the challenges i want to see my character deal with. Please weave them into your plot and make a fun, interesting story for me."

 

And, like any requests, a GM should try to treat everyone equally, and scheduel in enough time for them. The fewer complications to deal with in total means more time spent focusing on the ones that are there.

 

Recall early Champions days.."So, what 4 hunteds do you have?" And having enough enraged and even beserks to make the Hulk look mellow...

[tesuji]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The other aspect of complications that I love is the slight change in terminology. You now have 400 points, but lose 50 points if you don't have complications, rather than a 350 character who gains 50 from complications.

Guess i am not that subtle an individual.

 

When you tell me definitioons change and text change, i usually can get that.

 

But then you throw math into the mix and for me, subtlety and math don't mix well. math is math and math is precise and doesn't see "subtleties".

 

Saying "you have 350 plus up to 50 more for comps" to me is the exact same thing as saying "you have 400 minus up to 50 if you dont have 50 comps."

 

They are both identical ways of conveying the same mathematical formula and result in the same values.

 

It's a subtle difference, but it reflects the fact that complications are rewarding you for essential roleplaying hooks, not a way of gaining extra points by layering difficulties to an increasingly absurd level.

 

Sorry but absolutely NOTHING in the two ways of expressing it you described says one thing about either these being limited to "essential roleplaying hooks" or not being taken " to an increasingly absurd level"

 

Those are both SUBJECTIVE judgements that apply to either way of phrasing the math equally well. It doesn't matter whether you are explaining the formula as "start at 400 then minus" or "start at 350 then plus" for whether this is an essential roleplying element (if you believe such exist)

or whether its an absurd piling on.

 

Now, certainly, maybe the fluff text and descriptions and explantion text of "what comps are for" etc all switch the focus away from "more points" to "essential" etc blah blah but the formula change does not.

 

At least, not to me and not to any of my players who recall the associative law in math.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

If the GM is working those Complications then both options of 350 w/ none or 400 w/ 50, or any point inbetween or in excess, should be a potential and viable choice. Like in the brilliant Overconfidence example that character essentially had his DCV partially limited with Requires an EGO Roll or Only Usable Against Threats I Take Seriously, Complications are Limitations on your Powers, Characteristics, Talents and Skills that are personality driven.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Well I certainly find the ceiling too low...but, based on reading lots of posts here, many either had a hard time filling or just plain ignored the "full count"

 

Personally I file this change as "For the worse, but not broken..."

 

 

My group has always felt if you can't get 100 points in physiologicals you don't really know your character. And yes I and they use them all in play and it richens our gameplay. For us doing that way is an excellent toll for deepening the character so we put stuff in others might put in their head or in notes. no right or wrong that's our way and we're happy for it.

We've always played with no limits and the numbers were all over the place form about 160 to over 300. We take them until the characters are done and not before or after. For me as an ignore this if i ever pick up 6th.