More Complications, Please

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

A character with no Complications is a random actor, a loose cannon. You don't know if they will save the hostage or blow a hole through the hostage to get to the terrorist. You don't know whether they will fly right on by or stop the crime. They are amoral and apathetic. Chaotic Neutral assassins. Pure impulse, no direction.

 

I don't see this as the case. The character will still have a psychological profile, a personality; there's simply no mechanical basis for it (which makes it more 'pure roleplaying', from a certain standpoint; you roleplay your character because that's the way he is, not because you have certain things written on your sheet).

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I don't see this as the case. The character will still have a psychological profile' date=' a personality; there's simply no mechanical basis for it (which makes it more 'pure roleplaying', from a certain standpoint; you roleplay your character because that's the way he is, not because you have certain things written on your sheet).[/quote']

 

OTOH, if you've established that's your character's nature, you might as well write up the complications. I'm not saying I wouldn't role-play something just because it's not documented on a character sheet -- good roleplaying is its own reward. But as long as we're talking HERO, we do have game mechanics for describing how a character's background affects play, so we may as well use it.

 

I have no problems with taking 'extra' complications beyond the campaign limit, even if they're worth zero points -- I agree 100% with CasualPlayer's observation that a character isn't necessarily 'finished' when it hits an arbitrary maximum limit of complications. But Ghost Angel is also right -- there's only so much a GM can do with a limited amount of game time. My preferred approach to this (when I have 'leftover' complications) is to discuss with the GM which ones will get 'zeroed out' on the character sheet -- I could do that myself, but that might be a missed opportunity to make the character better fit the GM's vision for the campaign. Extra complications = more flexibility. Given that they all fit my character, the GM can pick which ones he wants to work with, and I can just role-play the rest, no problem.

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Good point - the Complications you allow to have Points associated with them are the ones you want hilighted In Play and that the GM can use to build a better campaign. However many you have, the ones with Points are the "really important ones" vs "these are part of the character"

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

From a points perspective - the more Complications per character, the more Complications come to the table for the GM to work with - and since there is a finite time of In Game aspects one has to work them in, the more Complications you have the less they're worth as a Game Tool per point.

 

If five players come to the table with 50 Points of Complications each, the GM has a small group Per Character and Overall to work with, he can really bring those out into the light, a Player will get More Play For The Points on each one. If those same five players each come with 150 Points of Complications the GM suddenly has a lot more points to work with, he won't be able to hilight each one for more than a short time otherwise he'll start neglecting both other Player's and the overall story of the Campaign. Their may be more "Complication Points" but suddenly each one is not getting nearly as much play overall, the points aren't really worth anything beyond numbers on the sheet.

 

That's like saying your wife has to make all of your favorite foods every time she makes a meal. Forgive me if I'm skeptical that there are any GMs out there who feel the need to incorporate every one of their players' Complications into every game, or even most. I think most players are happy with one time in the spotlight each game. Some would do cartwheels just to get that one chance to shine.

 

Now what is difficult is GMing characters who haven't sufficiently committed to their character, by indicating what they will and won't do, what motivates them and what dissuades them. One bad day at work and they start firing into the crowd, in my game. I can't plot all the paths someone like that might take.

 

Take a classic starting level character from prose, comics or film and I would be amazed if you had any difficulty coming up in excess of 100 pts in Complications for them, even Heroic level. I could actually list just the Complications and you would be able to tell me what classic character it is, because it is the Complications that define them. I think the higher Base points-lower Complications encourages ill defined characters, characters much less likely to become classics.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'm curious also, but have any of you used experience points to buy down Complications? Or had them evolve, as character growth, into a different tendency?

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

That's like saying your wife has to make all of your favorite foods every time she makes a meal. Forgive me if I'm skeptical that there are any GMs out there who feel the need to incorporate every one of their players' Complications into every game, or even most. I think most players are happy with one time in the spotlight each game. Some would do cartwheels just to get that one chance to shine.

 

Now what is difficult is GMing characters who haven't sufficiently committed to their character, by indicating what they will and won't do, what motivates them and what dissuades them. One bad day at work and they start firing into the crowd, in my game. I can't plot all the paths someone like that might take.

 

Take a classic starting level character from prose, comics or film and I would be amazed if you had any difficulty coming up in excess of 100 pts in Complications for them, even Heroic level. I could actually list just the Complications and you would be able to tell me what classic character it is, because it is the Complications that define them. I think the higher Base points-lower Complications encourages ill defined characters, characters much less likely to become classics.

 

If I didn't want the GM to deal with it in game, I wouldn't put it down on the character sheet. Ever, at all. Because it'd be a waste of ink. I already know how I'm going to play a character, Complications are a note to the GM on what I want to see in gameplay.

 

I'm curious also' date=' but have any of you used experience points to buy down Complications? Or had them evolve, as character growth, into a different tendency?[/quote']

 

All the time. I just recently changed a whole slew of Complications for my Fantasy Hero Character - in fact, through the course of the campaign the main driving Psychological Complication (revenge motivation) was completely ended (the character got their revenge) and was replaced with a different one altogether (they became a Paladin and now their main psychological focus is a spiritual one).

 

Complications are mutable - says so in the book too. Buy 'em off, change 'em out. I prefer to change them out, removing ones that the story has resolved and adding ones that have come up over the course of the characters life. It's how a campaign changes over time, how a character grows over time.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

If I didn't want the GM to deal with it in game' date=' I wouldn't put it down on the character sheet. Ever, at all. Because it'd be a waste of ink. I already know how I'm going to play a character.[/quote']

 

First you were talking about the impossibility of a GM being responsible for addressing the sum total of all the Complications of every player at the table, now it seems like you are saying that the GM can pick his focus as long as he addresses the players' Complications eventually.

 

Complications are a note to the GM on what I want to see in gameplay.

 

Now that's just crazy talk. Where do you get these ideas?

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

First you were talking about the impossibility of a GM being responsible for addressing the sum total of all the Complications of every player at the table' date=' now it seems like you are saying that the GM can pick his focus as long as he addresses the players' Complications eventually.[/quote']

 

No - not at all. What I'm saying is - As A Player I write down what I expect the GM to address for my character's part of the story. If I write it all down, I expect the GM to address it all. It's an unrealistic request if I write down lots and lots of them (for most games and GMs). It's also a cooperative effort, if a GM says to me "Sorry, that one will never come up in this campaign" I'm not doing anyone any good. Likewise if I'm going to play an aspect of the Character I never want the GM to address, even if I always play it (like, say, I know my Character has a Secret ID) I don't write it down. I'm wasting his time trying to incorporate an element that exists but I don't want part of the story.

 

Also, I believe a Character will change over time - as the GM addresses various Complications the character may outgrow them (overcoming a phobia FREX) or deal with them (avenge their father's death, FREX).

[sinanju]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Now what is difficult is GMing characters who haven't sufficiently committed to their character' date=' by indicating what they will and won't do, what motivates them and what dissuades them. One bad day at work and they start firing into the crowd, in my game. I can't plot all the paths someone like that might take.[/quote']

 

Only if you assume (as apparently you do) that a player who doesn't come up with a truckload of complications will play a character as likely to shoot busload of orphans as to fight the bad guy. If you're expected to come up with 150+ points of disads, but (as is usually the case), you can't take more than X points in a given category...once I've filled up my Psych Lims (which are there to "indicate what he will and won't do, what motivates him, what dissuades him" and so forth...what do another 100 points of OTHER disads accomplish?

 

Take a classic starting level character from prose, comics or film and I would be amazed if you had any difficulty coming up in excess of 100 pts in Complications for them, even Heroic level. I could actually list just the Complications and you would be able to tell me what classic character it is, because it is the Complications that define them. I think the higher Base points-lower Complications encourages ill defined characters, characters much less likely to become classics.

 

I could name most of those same characters with ONE complication (if it's the right complication).

DNPC: Elderly Aunt ...Spidey

Psych Lim: Criminals Are A Superstitious and Cowardly Lot...Batman

Weakness: Kryptonite...Superman

Hunted: Joker...Batman again

 

Just a few complications, well chosen, can define a character as well as a boatload of random disads selected just to fill a quota.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Only if you assume (as apparently you do) that a player who doesn't come up with a truckload of complications will play a character as likely to shoot busload of orphans as to fight the bad guy. If you're expected to come up with 150+ points of disads' date=' but (as is usually the case), you can't take more than X points in a given category...once I've filled up my Psych Lims (which are there to "indicate what he will and won't do, what motivates him, what dissuades him" and so forth...what do another 100 points of OTHER disads accomplish?[/quote']

 

Well, the other 100 are harder to dismiss as "would be taken anyway even if there were no points for it". I've seen players in D&D play characters with real personalities, even sometimes when those psych lim's do actually put them at a disadvantage or physical danger. I've yet to see a D&D character who is morbidly obese, blind in one eye or missing a limb because the player decided that character would be interesting to play such a character, and suffer the logical drawbacks of their injury (as opposed to Patch, who is missing an eye yet has no issues with peripheral vision or depth perception - it's just looks).

 

Don't see a lot of Hunteds or DNPC's (I have seen players write up bitter orphaned loners for the stated reason they don't want any hook for the GM to screw over their character). But I also question the issue if no one has these. Seriously, would there be no opponents for the heroes if no one had a Hunted, or no innocent bystanders if no one took a DNPC?

 

How many people take a Vulnerability or Susceptibility for role playing reasons ("Mr. DM, my character takes 50% more damage from Sonic Attacks due to his unusually good sense of hearing"; "I take an extra 2d6 damage whenever Charmed because of a violent internal reaction to mental suasion")?

 

And I also see those Psych's become a lot less potent when the chips are down ("Well, he's not THAT afraid of water - he'll dive in the lake to avoid the forest fire"; "his disdain for Magic isn't so great he'll refuse a Healing spell!")

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Only if you assume (as apparently you do) that a player who doesn't come up with a truckload of complications will play a character as likely to shoot busload of orphans as to fight the bad guy. If you're expected to come up with 150+ points of disads, but (as is usually the case), you can't take more than X points in a given category...once I've filled up my Psych Lims (which are there to "indicate what he will and won't do, what motivates him, what dissuades him" and so forth...what do another 100 points of OTHER disads accomplish?

 

 

 

I could name most of those same characters with ONE complication (if it's the right complication).

DNPC: Elderly Aunt ...Spidey

Psych Lim: Criminals Are A Superstitious and Cowardly Lot...Batman

Weakness: Kryptonite...Superman

Hunted: Joker...Batman again

 

Just a few complications, well chosen, can define a character as well as a boatload of random disads selected just to fill a quota.

 

Truckloads and boatloads? I guess it's all relative but if you think those characters are summed up by one Complication I'm going to have to disagree. All three have the Social Comp Secret Identity, and many a plot was spun off from someone about to uncover that identity. All three have a Psych Comp that is some version of Driven by Memory of Dead Relative: Pete's Uncle Ben, Bruce's parents, Clark's whole friggin' planet. All three have a CvK, but many versions of Batman didn't shed tears if villains killed each other while most versions of Superman have CvK at Total commitment. Spidey has With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, Superman has Truth, Justice and the American Way, Batman has serious trust issues. Spider-Man has Hunted: J Jonah Jameson, Superman has Hunted: Lex Luthor, Batman doesn't have Hunted by anybody unless it's one of the versions that has The League of Assassins involved in his origin because you don't accrue Hunteds of the villains you conflict with during the game. Joker could probably take Hunted: Batman though as Batman had a hand in his origin. All three have multiple DNPCs. Spidey has his elderly aunt, Harry Osborn and some girl that went from Liz Allen to Betty Brant to Gwen Stacy to MJ. Superman has Ma and Pa Kent, Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen. Batman has Dr. Thompkins and whoever happens to be his main squeeze (too many to list,) but Alfred and Commisioner Gordon are too competent to count as DNPCs. I guess you don't absolutely need to include Spider-Man's Psych Comp Covers Insecurity with Quips, but one of his trademarks is not being able to keep his mouth shut when he really should have. Probably shouldn't forget Pete's Susceptability to Radiation also. Each of the three has much more to offer.

 

Sinanju, you think Weakness: Kryptonite means Superman and I think Weakness: Kryptonite means generic Kryptonian.

[teh bunneh]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

In my current Fantasy campaign the GM said "choose 3-4 complications you want your characters story to focus around" and he didn't even care about the points. It's worked wonderfully' date=' the absolute core of the character's various plots are in the spotlight. We know that several possible Complications are always in there, but they're going to roleplayed out anyway, and not really needed to be noted as no focus is needed on them, they're not really there for 'points'.[/quote']

 

And that GM was me!

 

Yes, I asked the players to choose anywhere from 2-5 complications that they wanted to come up in the game. I told them that I didn't care about points, I just wanted interesting complications that I could hang a plot hook on. This is the list I got:

 

Niamh O’Derry

I see three plothooks on your character sheet: The first is that neither you nor your mother know who your father was. He could be an evil man, he could be a noble who would be disgraced if it was found out he was sleeping with a witch, or he could be something else entirely. Finding out who he was/is could be something very painful and life-changing for Niahm.

 

The second is the lack of respect that Witches get in this part of the world. People (if they find out what you are) don't trust you. Your boss doesn't like you, and only gives you crappy assignments, and doesn't let you take credit when you do something right. You'll have to work extra hard to prove yourself.

 

The last complication is the Police Officer's Code of Conduct. Some of your actions will be constrained. Someday, you'll want to kill someone who really deserves killin', but your code won't allow you (nor will it allow you to let someone else do it).

 

Isabelle Hawthorne

Her husband Nathaniel is still out there somewhere. Why did he commit those murders (including his own child)? Did he go mad? Was he under some kind of compulsion or curse? Is he possessed? And what has he been doing for the past several years. Regardless of the reasons, Isobelle wants to find him and get revenge for his crime.

 

Second, her brother-in-law James is standing in the way of her goals. He's keeping a close eye on her for now; that's why he sent her out here, to the ass-end of nowhere. What does he want? Is he merely trying to protect his family name, is he seeking greater political influence, or do his ambitions run deeper than that? Or perhaps he wants Isobelle for his own...

 

Third, she wants to prove herself. Everyone sees her as a spoiled rich-girl, and a Shelinsibeau at that! But she's a capable warrior and diplomat, if only she can get people to see. She needs to show the world that she can stand on her own.

 

Damien Wrathchild

First, his brother. He murdered the eldest brother and tried to murder you. Is he still out there? Does he know that Damien is still out there, and what will he do if he finds out? Why did he try to kill you? Just to secure the family name, or is there a deeper reason?

 

Second, who burned down his ancestral home, and why? Was it his brother (seems unlikely, since he went to all that effort to secure it for himself)? His brother's enemies? Who are these enemies, and why did they attack the family home? And are they Damien's enemies too, or his allies?

 

Third, Damien has done some things in his past that he's not proud of or happy about. At the time he did them, they seemed necessary, but in hindsight? He'd like to think he's a different person now. How does he atone for what he did? And what happens if his past comes looking for him? The friends/family of those he killed might hold a grudge, regardless of what amends he's tried to make.

 

Fourth, the Black Ghost, the assassin who trained Damien is still out there. Why did he decide to save you? Was it just for sentimental reasons, or did he have some ulterior motive? Regardless of his reasons, what if he shows up here to do a job? Will Damien try to stop him, help him, or look the other way?

 

Wythri Majaera

First, you've got your master Hugo Eldamoth. You've got the obvious hooks of his age and frailty, but looking further, he's a wise old wizard who had a long career. Did he used to be an adventurer (the best way to learn forgotten knowledge is to go out and seek it for yourself!)? Did he make any enemies during his career? Why would he just "pack up and leave" and come to Foxton -- maybe he was afraid that someone was getting a little too close for comfort? And since Wythri's his apprentice, his enemies become her enemies too...

 

Second, she's hunted by House Majestros. There are members of the household who are upset that she destroyed their ancient library. And there are those who feel her very existance is a blot on the good family name. Would someone try to kill her (or hire someone to kill her)? Or might someone try to perform some drastic measure to "cure" her?

 

And third, she's obsessed with mastering her magic. What if tempation came along and offered her a "cure"? What kind of steps would she take to become a real wizard? What price would she pay?

 

Not all of these have come up in play (yet!), but I do have long-range plans to hang story arcs (or at least significant side-plots) on all of them. And of course, each of the players and I went back and forth a bit on what they wanted the complication to represent (I might say, "So your ex-wife is trying to kill you..." and the player might counter with, "No, I don't see her as the murderous type. But she'd definitely try to ruin my reputation").

 

Pretty much everything else about them has come up during play. Lady Isobelle's "mother hen" nature, Damien's obsessive sneakiness, Wythri's social timidness, Lt. Niahm's determiness to prove herself -- we could attach a points value to all of those, I suppose, but I leave it to my players to play their characters. And frankly, if everyone wrote down all of their personality quirks (complete with point totals) before play began, I don't think we would've seen nearly so much organic and natural character growth and development as we have. I doubt Lady Isobelle would have become the team's "mother hen" if the player wrote down "Obsessive and vengeful (Common, Total)" on the charsheet.

 

But, you know, Diff'rent strokes and all that.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

And that GM was me!

 

Yes, I asked the players to choose anywhere from 2-5 complications that they wanted to come up in the game. I told them that I didn't care about points, I just wanted interesting complications that I could hang a plot hook on. This is the list I got:

 

Niamh O’Derry

I see three plothooks on your character sheet: The first is that neither you nor your mother know who your father was. He could be an evil man, he could be a noble who would be disgraced if it was found out he was sleeping with a witch, or he could be something else entirely. Finding out who he was/is could be something very painful and life-changing for Niahm.

 

The second is the lack of respect that Witches get in this part of the world. People (if they find out what you are) don't trust you. Your boss doesn't like you, and only gives you crappy assignments, and doesn't let you take credit when you do something right. You'll have to work extra hard to prove yourself.

 

The last complication is the Police Officer's Code of Conduct. Some of your actions will be constrained. Someday, you'll want to kill someone who really deserves killin', but your code won't allow you (nor will it allow you to let someone else do it).

 

Isabelle Hawthorne

Her husband Nathaniel is still out there somewhere. Why did he commit those murders (including his own child)? Did he go mad? Was he under some kind of compulsion or curse? Is he possessed? And what has he been doing for the past several years. Regardless of the reasons, Isobelle wants to find him and get revenge for his crime.

 

Second, her brother-in-law James is standing in the way of her goals. He's keeping a close eye on her for now; that's why he sent her out here, to the ass-end of nowhere. What does he want? Is he merely trying to protect his family name, is he seeking greater political influence, or do his ambitions run deeper than that? Or perhaps he wants Isobelle for his own...

 

Third, she wants to prove herself. Everyone sees her as a spoiled rich-girl, and a Shelinsibeau at that! But she's a capable warrior and diplomat, if only she can get people to see. She needs to show the world that she can stand on her own.

 

Damien Wrathchild

First, his brother. He murdered the eldest brother and tried to murder you. Is he still out there? Does he know that Damien is still out there, and what will he do if he finds out? Why did he try to kill you? Just to secure the family name, or is there a deeper reason?

 

Second, who burned down his ancestral home, and why? Was it his brother (seems unlikely, since he went to all that effort to secure it for himself)? His brother's enemies? Who are these enemies, and why did they attack the family home? And are they Damien's enemies too, or his allies?

 

Third, Damien has done some things in his past that he's not proud of or happy about. At the time he did them, they seemed necessary, but in hindsight? He'd like to think he's a different person now. How does he atone for what he did? And what happens if his past comes looking for him? The friends/family of those he killed might hold a grudge, regardless of what amends he's tried to make.

 

Fourth, the Black Ghost, the assassin who trained Damien is still out there. Why did he decide to save you? Was it just for sentimental reasons, or did he have some ulterior motive? Regardless of his reasons, what if he shows up here to do a job? Will Damien try to stop him, help him, or look the other way?

 

Wythri Majaera

First, you've got your master Hugo Eldamoth. You've got the obvious hooks of his age and frailty, but looking further, he's a wise old wizard who had a long career. Did he used to be an adventurer (the best way to learn forgotten knowledge is to go out and seek it for yourself!)? Did he make any enemies during his career? Why would he just "pack up and leave" and come to Foxton -- maybe he was afraid that someone was getting a little too close for comfort? And since Wythri's his apprentice, his enemies become her enemies too...

 

Second, she's hunted by House Majestros. There are members of the household who are upset that she destroyed their ancient library. And there are those who feel her very existance is a blot on the good family name. Would someone try to kill her (or hire someone to kill her)? Or might someone try to perform some drastic measure to "cure" her?

 

And third, she's obsessed with mastering her magic. What if tempation came along and offered her a "cure"? What kind of steps would she take to become a real wizard? What price would she pay?

 

Not all of these have come up in play (yet!), but I do have long-range plans to hang story arcs (or at least significant side-plots) on all of them. And of course, each of the players and I went back and forth a bit on what they wanted the complication to represent (I might say, "So your ex-wife is trying to kill you..." and the player might counter with, "No, I don't see her as the murderous type. But she'd definitely try to ruin my reputation").

 

Pretty much everything else about them has come up during play. Lady Isobelle's "mother hen" nature, Damien's obsessive sneakiness, Wythri's social timidness, Lt. Niahm's determiness to prove herself -- we could attach a points value to all of those, I suppose, but I leave it to my players to play their characters. And frankly, if everyone wrote down all of their personality quirks (complete with point totals) before play began, I don't think we would've seen nearly so much organic and natural character growth and development as we have. I doubt Lady Isobelle would have become the team's "mother hen" if the player wrote down "Obsessive and vengeful (Common, Total)" on the charsheet.

 

But, you know, Diff'rent strokes and all that.

 

Well, if I had known it was you....I would have been more critical!

 

Not really, as I've never been shy about praising your storytelling skills and design theories. But I don't see there being any different strokes, because each of those character thumbnails could easily be hardcoded into 100 pts or more in Complications if hardcoding was the way you roll. It apparently isn't how your group rolls, because it sounds like you're lucky enough to not have a mad dog player who runs away everytime he's let off the leash. Take a peek at the Games I've Walked Out On thread to see how many of those type there are out there; you've probably had a few infiltrate your con games, Bill.

 

The back-and-forthstory conversation you described is how I've been cocreating characters with my players since the 90's. And many of my players played for years without ever having anything on paper, just a chat and some agreed upon principles. The guys who needed structure and formal constraints got structure and formal constraints. The ones who didn't and were trustworthy could roam freely.

 

There's no sanctity of the character point. It's just a convenient meta-method of making the books balance, and I'm perfectly ok with keeping my books in my head. But 100 points worth of Complications isn't arduous or even hard.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

How many people take a Vulnerability or Susceptibility for role playing reasons ("Mr. DM, my character takes 50% more damage from Sonic Attacks due to his unusually good sense of hearing"; "I take an extra 2d6 damage whenever Charmed because of a violent internal reaction to mental suasion")?

 

Actually, for what it's worth, Vulnerabilities are usually the first Disad I look at. I find them preferable sometimes because they are raw mechanics; if you're Vulnerable to Electricity, and Megavolt shows up, you know what's going to happen ... it's all in the numbers.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Actually' date=' for what it's worth, Vulnerabilities are usually the first Disad I look at. I find them preferable sometimes because they are raw mechanics; if you're Vulnerable to Electricity, and Megavolt shows up, you know what's going to happen ... it's all in the numbers.[/quote']

 

But would you take one for no points in return?

[Vondy]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

The guidelines for base-complication points in the book are guidelines. You can set whatever base-complication dichotomy you want for your game and group. That's one of the beauties of Hero. You can use it as a plug and play system, but its designed to be extensible and modifiable. You should do what works for you.

 

I only give base points. Complications are to flesh out characters and provide dramatic levers during play. They also serve as a basis of "heroic action point" currency. The result is that my players view them more as run-time elements of their character than a design-time element. True, it should be that way anyways, but the HAP focus has made it more of a narrative element for my group - and caused complications to be more fully integrated and embraced conceptually speaking.

 

As for whether the stated number is enough: I feel a few well-conceived and defined complications can inform and drive a character farther than a list the player took to fill a design requirement. Also, if a character has 3-4 solid complications that will serve the core concept and then the player goes looking for stuff to fill in points it can actually dillute the character concept.

 

This isn't to say I'm against a lot of complications, but I don't see the quantity of complications being equal to the quality of the complications. My philosophy: write down what is necessary to define the character. Many or few isn't as important as whether they provide sufficient story levers to begin play with.

 

And that wordage "begin play" is important. A character shouldn't just grow in power and ability as their story progresses. They should also grow as characters. That happens through play. Their adventures and experiences should impact their complications. If they're out adventuring and the GM is doing their job they will gain (and occasionally) lose complications as play progresses. Having complications tightly bound to point values tends to restrict rather than enable that give and take.

 

Its a question of how well we really need to know a character when we start. I tend to be a character fetishist. I will work out a characters backstory and personality to the nth degree. But what do we really know about our favorite characters in a comic, novel, or television series when we first meet them? Usually we only have a thumbnail sketch with a few stylistic and personality quirks to hook us. The characters we come to know and love down the road are defined by what we learn story after story after story.

 

I think that's just as valid as the "know thy character" method that has become so popular in modern gaming. I've built fully conceived characters with in-depth backstories. I've enjoyed playing them. But some of the most "real" and sharply defined characters I've played started out like a lead in a first issue: a mechanical build with a few biographical and psychological notes. They became defined by their stories and there legend was established during play - not in a bio I wrote out long form.

 

I don't think 100 points is hard to come up with. I didn't think, most of the time, 150 points was hard to come up with. I've built characters pushing 200. I do think, however, that starting out with Mulder & Scully half way through the X-Files' run is no more valid than starting out with Mulder & Scully from the pilot episode. In the pilot episode their complications amounted to 3-4 items each with a few quirks. By series end? They had added boucoup complications - and managed to drop a few. But, by then we'd seen then built up in hundreds of episodes.

 

Its a question of psychology and how you approach character design and story telling. If you want to built Batman in issue #700 that's valid. Its also valid to build Batman from issue #1.

[Christopher]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Under the Old Regime, I could usually fill out the total suggested number of Disadvantages.

Sometimes I couldn't, and then I just let it go with fewer total points.

 

But under the New Rules, I find I "bump the ceiling" pretty quickly and sometimes have to trim it.

I think it's only a matter of time before I find that I can't fully define my character within the limits imposed.

I haven't read through the entire 140 Posts and don't plan to (so this will have propably been said already). But you can always just take more if you want to and the rules even say so.

The only difference is that you don't get anything for them anymore. If you want to, you can still get 100, or even 150 Complications for your 400 pt champion.

 

But if you say this change of rules means you have lesser complications on your sheet than earlier, might this mean that you only had so many ideas in that you wrote down in 5E because you had to? So (subconciously) it was never about having an interesting character, just "adding more complications to get the points" disguised as "having an interesting character".

 

Somone said one:

"Humans deceide by emotion and rationalise by logic: I bought the beautyfull red car, beacuse it is very cheap".

[teh bunneh]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Well' date=' if I had known it was [i']you[/i]....I would have been more critical!

 

As well you should!

 

Not really, as I've never been shy about praising your storytelling skills and design theories. But I don't see there being any different strokes, because each of those character thumbnails could easily be hardcoded into 100 pts or more in Complications if hardcoding was the way you roll.

 

Possibly, although a lot of it might involve double-dipping (which I don't like much). DNPC: Old Master; Psych: Overprotective of Old Master; Hunted: Old Master's Enemies is 50-60 points right there, but all of that is (in my mind) covered in the single DNPC. I like to paint with broader brushstrokes, I suppose.

 

It apparently isn't how your group rolls, because it sounds like you're lucky enough to not have a mad dog player who runs away everytime he's let off the leash. Take a peek at the Games I've Walked Out On thread to see how many of those type there are out there; you've probably had a few infiltrate your con games, Bill.

 

No doubt, I've got a pretty good group.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

But would you take one for no points in return?

 

What's the Aquaset's Susceptability to being out of water for more than an hour worth? Like 5pts? I'm sure they would all rather have a Competent DNPC instead, but then would they be the same character?

 

And there is nothing so common and damaging that it could be a 0pt Vulnerablility, but I get your point, Hugh. Maybe static electricity or atmospheric pressure.... Nah.

[casualplayer]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Possibly' date=' although a lot of it might involve double-dipping (which I don't like much). DNPC: Old Master; Psych: Overprotective of Old Master; Hunted: Old Master's Enemies is 50-60 points right there, but all of that is (in my mind) covered in the single DNPC. I like to paint with broader brushstrokes, I suppose. [/quote']

 

Nice example set, and let me share my design philosophy. Again for all you (not you, but especially you) who are getting your hackles up, this is my design philosophy.

 

If the character had this set I would see them as a character whose Old Master demands attention (DNPC,) someone who interferes in their Old Master's affairs even when not requested or welcome (Psych Comp) and whose known and close association with the Old Master means that his enemies see the character as a target also (Hunted.) Subtracting any of these three would minimize or eliminate that element.

 

Being a jerk GM I would probably put this character in a setting where they would have to fight their way to their Old Master's side through a roster of their mutual enemies, just to realize that they have been showing an embarassing lack of faith in their Old Master's abilities to handle himself and that all of the Old Master's requests for attention have been symptoms of ever-growing self doubt. They may have to do the hardest thing ever and that is to not take action. Could end up with the Old Master being cut down with his honor restored, more likely I would have the enemy overstep and give the player an honorable excuse to step in.

[ghost-angel]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Getting back towards "point values and general worth" -- many people have said they don't feel a character is completely without a large number of Complications defining quite a bit of the character's background. Many have also said they always struggled with finding Complications in the past (or Disads...) and felt that just choosing some to fill a quota of points diluted the character.

 

It's easier to Add than to Remove - in pretty much everything.

 

By lowering the point total suggested the book is, in my eyes, essentially saying "Find the core aspects you want to see In The Game The Most" - and there's no reason why those who liked 200 Points worth in the past still can't, or won't, do that now. Or ones that wanted to get as detailed with their Complications as they do with their Skills and Powers and Characteristics.

 

I think, from a System standpoint, the lower numbers are a better choice. It involves the greater number of people out there - those who struggle to find 75 points worth, and those who can blink and come up with 175 points worth. The value you get out of it, in the end, will be the value you end up putting into it ultimately.

[Enforcer84]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

This is a decent idea on the surface' date=' but the issue is that noone would have any reason to take anything but the minimum level of the Complication (ie 8- Hunteds, Psyc Comps at Moderate etc). Having even a small point minimum for Complications will sometimes make a player decide to take complications that are at a higher point value than the minimum.[/quote']

 

Well if there's no points, I suspect the GM would pretty much choose the frequency.

 

Yay! I'm a necromancer!

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

From a points perspective - the more Complications per character, the more Complications come to the table for the GM to work with - and since there is a finite time of In Game aspects one has to work them in, the more Complications you have the less they're worth as a Game Tool per point.

 

I'm not sure this has been so explicitly and articulately stated yet.

 

And I'm highlighting it because I think it reflects one possible reason why it is commonly (if not unanimously) percieved that Complication points have an "inflated exchange rate" i.e. that the 10 Character points you get for a 10 pt Complication is worth more as an Asset than the Complication is actually worth as a Liability.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

the palindromedary wonders if the post will take the THIRD time we try it

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

Here's another one I'd like to highlight

 

I'm curious also' date=' but have any of you used experience points to buy down Complications? Or had them evolve, as character growth, into a different tendency?[/quote']

 

Because I think they are two very good questions, and also two very different questions.

 

I've done both. I remember buying off Unluck on a character who had taken it mostly because I didn't want to cut any of the Powers or Skills and couldn't think of any more Disadvantages appropriate to the character.

 

And I've seen one of my players buy off a DNPC, not because she wanted him written out of the story, but because she wanted to see that character grow in capability to become more of an equal partner, as opposed to someone needing to be rescued once in a while.

 

 

As for change, as opposed to outright buying off, I've definitely seen some switching out to reflect character change, especially picking up new Hunteds and Reputations. In fact, I used to assume (I thought it was kind of implied, although I don't suppose the rules ever said as much) that the points you got for things like that at the start of the game actually represent experience points earned while picking up those kind of Disadvantages.

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

DNPC: Palindromedary

[Lucius]

Re: More Complications, Please

 

I'm glad I revived this thread. Lots of interesting discussion.

 

I have no problems with taking 'extra' complications beyond the campaign limit, even if they're worth zero points -- I agree 100% with CasualPlayer's observation that a character isn't necessarily 'finished' when it hits an arbitrary maximum limit of complications. But Ghost Angel is also right -- there's only so much a GM can do with a limited amount of game time. My preferred approach to this (when I have 'leftover' complications) is to discuss with the GM which ones will get 'zeroed out' on the character sheet -- I could do that myself, but that might be a missed opportunity to make the character better fit the GM's vision for the campaign. Extra complications = more flexibility. Given that they all fit my character, the GM can pick which ones he wants to work with, and I can just role-play the rest, no problem.

 

This gives me an idea.

 

A Variable Complication Pool. Not necessarily by that name.

 

Rather than a specific “Hunted” the player chooses something like “Assorted Enemies.” Picks a general frequency and intensity, perhaps getting points for that. And then lists options, several people or groups that might be pursuing, spying on, or working against the character for whatever reasons.

 

I only give base points. Complications are to flesh out characters and provide dramatic levers during play. They also serve as a basis of "heroic action point" currency. The result is that my players view them more as run-time elements of their character than a design-time element. True, it should be that way anyways, but the HAP focus has made it more of a narrative element for my group - and caused complications to be more fully integrated and embraced conceptually speaking.

 

This idea intrigues me and I'd like to explore it further. Possibly in other threads.

 

And that wordage "begin play" is important. A character shouldn't just grow in power and ability as their story progresses. They should also grow as characters. That happens through play. Their adventures and experiences should impact their complications. If they're out adventuring and the GM is doing their job they will gain (and occasionally) lose complications as play progresses. Having complications tightly bound to point values tends to restrict rather than enable that give and take.

 

Emphasis mine. I think that's an excellent point. Even acknowledging that it's possible to shift Complications around as the game progresses, having a certain set “nailed down” with point values at start may tend to inhibit the degree of flexibility you desire.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Hunted: Palindromedary