I like disadvantages that give you XP, but I don't like the way they're implemented in a lot of games.

For those of you who've not encountered games which do this, a brief rundown of the idea: instead of disadvantages giving you extra character creation points at game start (like in GURPS), disadvantages either cost character gen points or are free (but you can only take a limited number), and give you XP in-session when they cause you trouble. So, for example, if you take the "Hated Enemy" advantage and your nemesis shows up to cause trouble in the session, you get XP.

The problem I have with this is that most systems I see which do this make no distinction between player-activated disadvantages and GM-activated disadvantages, even though player-activated disadvantages are plainly better.

To give you an example, my Weapons of the Gods character has the Painfully Honest disadvantage, which gives him XP whenever he's caused trouble by failing to lie (or telling the truth at an inappropriate time/to inappropriate people). He also has (or rather, had) the Hated Enemy disadvantages, which gave him XP whenever his arch-nemesis showed up.

The first one is player-activated: I can always choose to ignore the disadvantage just by having my character keep his mouth shut - sure, I won't get the XP for playing the advantage, but sometimes the IC trouble just ain't worth it. Other times, I can blabber the party's secrets to all and sundry and get the XP whenever I want.

The second one is GM-activated. It's up to the GM, not me, when it's triggered and how inconvenient it is. What's more, if the other players also have a bunch of GM-activated disadvantages, my one isn't likely to come up as often as my Painful Honesty - the GM's not going to be able to work my nemesis into every damn session, whereas I can always find some way to use my Honesty.

I see no way in which player-activated disadvantages are less beneficial to the player than GM-activated disadvantages: the player-activated disadvantages happen when the player wants them to happen, as often as the player wants them to happen, in whichever situation the player deems it's worth having them happen in. And yet, in so many systems, player- and GM-activated disadvantages cost the same, and give you exactly the same benefit.

Agreed.  The idea of having disadvantages as a source of resources (XPs or Hero Points or Gummy Bears or whatever) is a cool one, but so far designers seem captivated by the novelty of it, and haven't really dug down to say "How do I make these things consistent and balanced?"

"Hated Enemy" and "Honest" aren't even in the same category of thing, except in the very broadest sense.  I'd like to see a game system that had them more readily separated.

Consistency and balance in GM vs player-activated dis/advantages is up to the GM.

I don't really see how "hated enemy" and "honest" can be separated in game mechanics. That's what we roleplay for.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't really see how "hated enemy" and "honest" can be separated in game mechanics. That's what we roleplay for.

Uh ... couldn't you have (as the most rough-and-ready possible design) two categories of Disadvantages?  Like "You can have up to three Player-Activated Disads and up to three GM-Activated Disads, and you must have at least one of each"?

Personally, I'd prefer something a bit more elegant, but that would take time to think of.  As a proof of concept though ... they could be separated, I think.

Maybe. But why would you? That would be stupid.

I mean, you could have player and GM-activated attributes, too. "Okay, as GM I'll take Strength and Health, you can take Education and Perception, yeah? So if you want to use Strength, well you can't unless I feel like it." You could do that. But why? What does it add to the game?

Again, we have to distinguish between things which are original and things which are innovative.

What works best is something like Fate 2.0 - the GM can try to activate the traits, but the player can choose not to let the GM do so, or choose to activate them all by themselves. In this way, the game mechanics allow the GM to shape the game, but only by consent of the players.

Whereas your GURPS or similar mean that either the GM ignores the Disadvantages and just hopes the players will roleplay them, or else the GM imposes them. "No, you can't fight because you're a Coward." Thus, arguments, which are boring.

Choice is best.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMaybe. But why would you? That would be stupid.

...

Choice is best.

This is me not getting into a "Winner Take All" argument with you.

I recognize the strengths of giving both the GM and the players the right to invoke any type of Disadvantage with consent of the other party.  I think it'd be cool for the player to be able to say "Hey, my Hated Enemy should totally be behind this!" and maybe collect the points (and change the plot).

Separately and without comparison:  It would be cool to have a system that recognizes that some disadvantages (Hated Enemy) are most easily invoked by the GM (who, after all, controls said Enemy) and some disadvantages (Honesty) are most easily invoked by the player (who, after all, controls said Honesty).  Keeping them separate could aid with clarity and communication, and help everyone keep tabs on the bits that have been delegated to them.  That would be a good thing.

Quote from: Kyle AaronConsistency and balance in GM vs player-activated dis/advantages is up to the GM.

I don't really see how "hated enemy" and "honest" can be separated in game mechanics. That's what we roleplay for.

As Tony's said elsewhere in the argument, the separation comes in who chooses when the disadvantage kicks in. If you have a setup where the player can request that their Hated Enemy be behind something (and that might make that particular challenge more difficult for the PCs than it would otherwise have been), or a setup where the GM gets to activate the player's Painful Honesty, then all's fair, but out of all the games I've seen where disadvantages give you XP, you don't have that situation.

What you do have is a heap of advantages which are clearly meant to be GM-activated, and a heap which are meant to be player-activated. While the GM could just make sure the GM-activated disadvantages come into play just as much as the player-activated ones do, that can get pretty crazy pretty quickly - my Hated Enemy shows up in every session, Amy's Hidden Master is giving her orders more quickly than she can complete them, Joe's Nightmares are hitting so frequently he can't get a decent night's sleep and Jen's Haunting is dogging her night and day.

In my experience, though, GMs simply don't slip Hated Enemies and similar disadvantages into the game as often as players invoke their Painfully Honest/Short-Tempered/Dumb as a Rock/whatever disadvantages - they just make sure the consequences are more serious whenever they show up. This just means there's even more advantage to the players in taking player-activated disadvantages as opposed to GM-activated ones. The GM-activated disadvantages will probably show up less often (so you get less XP out of them) and cause you more trouble.

But there'll always be a time when a player wants some particular trait to come forward, or the GM.

Plus, the GM already gets to - in game mechanics terms - definitely control the entire game world. It's a bit rough that the player doesn't get full control of their character. Sure, the GM can tempt the player by offering Fate Points to invoke Aspects in Fate, or XP in D&D, etc. Tempt, but not dictate.

Kyle, I really don't understand what you are saying here.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut there'll always be a time when a player wants some particular trait to come forward, or the GM.

Er, yes, this is true. But none of the games I have seen which have disadvantages that give you XP have any mechanic which allows the player to decide when, say, a Hated Enemy shows up, or allows the GM to prompt a player to invoke their Painful Honesty. (The XP you get for that is the only bribe, and to be fair it's usually a sufficient bribe: again, you get the player-invoked disads cropping up more often than the GM-invoked ones.)

QuotePlus, the GM already gets to - in game mechanics terms - definitely control the entire game world. It's a bit rough that the player doesn't get full control of their character. Sure, the GM can tempt the player by offering Fate Points to invoke Aspects in Fate, or XP in D&D, etc. Tempt, but not dictate.

Well, that's the thing. In every one of these games that I have seen, the player-activated disadvantages are entirely under the control of the player, because they relate to the character's personality, whilst the GM-activated disadvantages are entirely under the control of the GM, because they deal with "rest of the world" things - hated enemies, hidden masters, other features of the PCs' background which would typically be controlled by the GM.

Quote from: WarthurEr, yes, this is true. But none of the games I have seen which have disadvantages that give you XP have any mechanic which allows the player to decide when, say, a Hated Enemy shows up, or allows the GM to prompt a player to invoke their Painful Honesty.

Then you should go and download Fate, specifically the second edition.

FATE's solution is reasonable, although I still think there is room for other systems - which don't have such a system - to make a distinction between "player-activated" and "GM-activated" disadvantages, for the reasons I've specified here.

In particular, Aspects in FATE don't seem to include things like "Hated Enemy" and other things which would traditionally be under the purview of the GM. It would be odd to play a game where the following exchange happened:

GM: You turn the corner and there is your Hated Enemy, Duke Roderick!
Player: I spend 2 Fate points to counteract your invocation of my Aspect.
GM: OK, you turn the corner and there isn't your Hated Enemy, Duke Roderick...

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut there'll always be a time when a player wants some particular trait to come forward, or the GM.

Plus, the GM already gets to - in game mechanics terms - definitely control the entire game world. It's a bit rough that the player doesn't get full control of their character. Sure, the GM can tempt the player by offering Fate Points to invoke Aspects in Fate, or XP in D&D, etc. Tempt, but not dictate.

Fate's a damn fine system.

Other ways of doing things (like, for instance, what Warthur's been discussing) would be cool too.

I don't see how "Fate is cool!" has any bearing on whether this other, different stuff is cool or not ... or vice-versa.

Quote from: WarthurIn particular, Aspects in FATE don't seem to include things like "Hated Enemy" and other things which would traditionally be under the purview of the GM. It would be odd to play a game where the following exchange happened:

GM: You turn the corner and there is your Hated Enemy, Duke Roderick!
Player: I spend 2 Fate points to counteract your invocation of my Aspect.
GM: OK, you turn the corner and there isn't your Hated Enemy, Duke Roderick...

I've had players who chose "Unknown Enemy" as an Aspect for their character.  I invoked it every couple of sessions. I didn't say, "you turn the corner and there he is", I'd say at the beginning of the session, "you're going to cop an enemy this session - here's a Fate Point, is that okay with you? If not, match it." So I avoided that problem.

Of course, in the case where the GM is a knucklehead and chooses to invoke the enemy Aspect at the very moment the PC turns a corner, if the player says, "no he doesn't appear" and offers the Fate Point, that's easily dealt with. The NPC still appears, but does not appear as an Enemy.

"He passes you around the corner, face down, deep in thought, and doesn't notice you."
"He sees you, but he's unarmed and you've got your sword and scale armour, so he crosses the street to avoid you."
"He sees you, and says, "just the man I wanted to see! You're the only one who can help me!" Will you stop to listen to what he says, or attack him on the spot..? If you attack him, you'd better give me that Fate Point back."

And so on. The possibilities are endless. You just need to use your imagination. The NPC who is an Enemy appears, but doesn't act as an Enemy. It's the same as when a PC who is Strong - their muscles are still there even when they're not using them, even though they may not work so well today because the PC is sick with the flu or whatever. Muscles are to the Strong Aspect what the NPC is to the Enemy Aspect.

I just don't see why you'd make some or all of the traits of a character entirely in the hands of the GM. The GM already has the rest of the game world for that sort of manipulation of things. Let the players have their characters, it's all they've got, really.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't see how "Fate is cool!" has any bearing on whether this other, different stuff is cool or not ... or vice-versa.

I didn't say Fate was cool. I said that it was a game system where the GM and players both were able to invoke PC Dis/Advantages, but where the choice ultimately always lay in the hands of the player, not the GM.  Which has a bearing on the questions raised in this thread.

How does removing choice from the player about their character improve the game session? What do you need players for if the GM's making decisions for them? Why not just play with yourself?

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhy not just play with yourself?

What you mean like CRPGs...

Regards,
David R