Quote from: jhkim;4927534) There are some common disadvantages which shouldn't be in the same category as others - especially "Enemies" or "Hunted".  Since most adventures you're going to end up fighting a villain anyway, this one tends to be mishandled, in my opinion.

Yes. I mean, if you don't take Enemies as a Disadvantage, does that mean no-one will ever hassle the PCs and come after them?
"The evil wizard has found the party, and -"
"Excuse me, but my character didn't take the Enemy disadvantage, he should be left alone. Or give me another 10xp to spend right now."
"..."

In GURPS I always took Enemies, reasoning that a PC is going to get them anyway, so I may as well get some extra stuff for them. Usually the GM would forget about that disadvantage, and the whole party and my character would just get the same enemies and allies they would have got anyway. Yay, free xp.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;492780In GURPS I always took Enemies, reasoning that a PC is going to get them anyway, so I may as well get some extra stuff for them. Usually the GM would forget about that disadvantage, and the whole party and my character would just get the same enemies and allies they would have got anyway. Yay, free xp.

This is one of those things that I'm generally careful about as a GM, only because, it tells you something about what the player wants to see, though this tends to be in FATE too.

Thinking about it now though, it seems to be a background thing, not an Aspect one! Interesting. What I mean is, I was going to write "and he has an aspect about his evil brother and that's why I made sure he shows up." But thinking about it now, I think he might have one Aspect about it, but I don't think I even gave him a FATE point when I had the main lower-tier bad guy for the game be his evil brother. I DO remember it from the background generation (you know, the bit where FATE has you tell a little story for each phase of character generation; players really liked it). I remember the guy from THAT and then I made sure to include him in the game because I, the GM, think he's interesting.

So, hmm. That's another thread maybe. On using PC backstory. I do wonder if it would be different in GURPS, where you don't do that little story thing (but might do a background info dump about your character before the game starts). Off top a new thread!

PC backstories in GURPS are exactly the same as in every other game system ever created: few read them, fewer still remember them, and none care.

Roleplaying games are about the interesting stuff that happens to your character during the adventure, not before it.

Most of my characters have something wrong with them even if we're not using disadvantages, so I guess that's preference #1.
 
Up Front might be OK if its not too fiddly, if the points gained back are lower than the actual handicap (so the points are a compensation for letting you play a character that's defective, not an incentive to be a freak). I don't tend to like mental disadvantages at all though, at least unless they can be "bought off" in play, since otherwise its blocking off organic development in a character's personality.
 
A bit suspicious of "constant" disadvantages, since it could mean unlimited xps over a campaign, though I've never played either FATE or nWoD or any system that used these.
 
Long ago, I did see a system called ROAR (Rick's Own Adventure Rules or somesuch) which had an up-front system built into the attributes in a way I really liked; attribute scores gave a character [stat-10] in faculty points (if positive) or flaw points (if negative) you used to buy advantages/disadvantages, so that a character with a low CON might be a haemophiliac or a low STR might make a character a midget, while high DEX might give a character ambidexterity or high CHA attractiveness or a good reputation.  However, I lost my copy ages ago and the game seems to have vanished forever off the Internets.

That ROAR concept sounds interesting! Maybe someone will wander in and fill in the blanks.

Anyway, I usually convert "Big Bad Enemy" into a localized massive red danger zone with concentric areas of lesser danger radiating out -- and at least a random assassin ambush every few sessions. Granted the spacial disadvantage is readily manageable by staying away (or circumvented entirely by planes hopping), so that's what the assassins are for. I also read it that if ever the PC gets out of range of a BBE they immediately acquire a new powerful regional one, just 'cuz. But I agree, that's a hard one to manage without becoming redundant.

I dunno, this is more of an issue of "playing the game" v. "win at character generation" for me. Certain systems are easy to break from the onset and can only be managed by a tight GM leash. I reserve these ads/disads as one of those very special rewards I allow my more veteran players; I need someone mature enough not to wank all over the table's game. RPGs are shared fun, not solo fun.

I'll sum up my argument from Big Purple.

A reward should be given as temporally and contextually close to its payment as possible. Constant Disads are near perfect in this regard. However, Up Front Disads are payed for in an entirely different context (during character generation instead of actual play), and after a considerable amount of time has passed.

This results in players overspending on Disads and then doing their best to avoid paying for them. It's the difference between paying for something with cash (Constant), and paying for something with a credit card (Up Front). The kind of behavior 'Up Front' produces is predictable enough that corporations feel safe in staking BILLIONS of dollars on it, and exactly the opposite of that required for good game play.

Perhaps more importantly though is that unless the GM can run a railroad without the players complaining, THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT DISADS WILL COME UP! Sure, you may plan to address a character's colorblindness and issues with women, but you can't guarantee it will be addressed because player action changes the situation, and it may never come up. And that also means there's no fair way to asses the initial worth of an Up Front Disad during character generation.

Constant Disads may not be perfect, but Up Front Disads are completely broken. I mean, this is one of those few game related things I can bring scientific and logical evidence to support. Mind you, I think the entire concept of a 'disadvantage' is flawed, but that's another discussion.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;493870Perhaps more importantly though is that unless the GM can run a railroad without the players complaining, THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT DISADS WILL COME UP! Sure, you may plan to address a character's colorblindness and issues with women, but you can't guarantee it will be addressed because player action changes the situation, and it may never come up. And that also means there's no fair way to asses the initial worth of an Up Front Disad during character generation.

Constant Disads may not be perfect, but Up Front Disads are completely broken. I mean, this is one of those few game related things I can bring scientific and logical evidence to support. Mind you, I think the entire concept of a 'disadvantage' is flawed, but that's another discussion.

This is based on a pile of assumptions about what you want disads to do  behaviorally.  

To take a classic example, Superman's weakness to kryptonite.  In a game with Up Front disads, Superman's player will indeed be trying his hardest to avoid the weakness of kryptonite coming up.  He'll try to use various sort of strategies so that he isn't affected by it, and thus get that disad "for free".  Now, if your assumption is that this is bad behavior to be discouraged, then you might want to go with Constant disads.  However, from my point of view, this is very reasonable in-character behavior that should be encouraged.  It makes a damn lot of sense that Superman should take steps to avoid being crippled by kryptonite.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;493870I'll sum up my argument from Big Purple.
 
A reward should be given as temporally and contextually close to its payment as possible. Constant Disads are near perfect in this regard. However, Up Front Disads are payed for in an entirely different context (during character generation instead of actual play), and after a considerable amount of time has passed.
 
This results in players overspending on Disads and then doing their best to avoid paying for them. It's the difference between paying for something with cash (Constant), and paying for something with a credit card (Up Front). The kind of behavior 'Up Front' produces is predictable enough that corporations feel safe in staking BILLIONS of dollars on it, and exactly the opposite of that required for good game play.
 
Perhaps more importantly though is that unless the GM can run a railroad without the players complaining, THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT DISADS WILL COME UP! Sure, you may plan to address a character's colorblindness and issues with women, but you can't guarantee it will be addressed because player action changes the situation, and it may never come up. And that also means there's no fair way to asses the initial worth of an Up Front Disad during character generation.
 
Constant Disads may not be perfect, but Up Front Disads are completely broken. I mean, this is one of those few game related things I can bring scientific and logical evidence to support. Mind you, I think the entire concept of a 'disadvantage' is flawed, but that's another discussion.

I'd agree with jhkim as regards behaviour.
 
The argument here bothers me since by this logic, isn't the same true of Advantages as Disadvantages, and anything else that benefits a character? For instance, to have a "fair" system here, should PCs instead of buying a Strength score initially, have to pay points only when they actually have to lift something heavy?
 
I don't think an 'up-front' system is quite as bad as that. If you view Fatal Vulnerability: kryptonite as only being a disadvantage when the PC actually meets kryptonite in play for instance, then the extra points he got for taking aren't really an advantage either - until whatever feature he spent them on comes up and is useful.

Quote from: jhkim;493871To take a classic example, Superman's weakness to kryptonite. [...] It makes a damn lot of sense that Superman should take steps to avoid being crippled by kryptonite.

We'd call that "roleplaying." But with up-front disadvantages, you tend not to get so much roleplaying, and more arguments.

"Yes I know he has a weakness to kryptonite, but water is a barrier to alpha particles, so why should he drown in this pool?" etc.

If the player roleplays the character trying to avoid the disadvantage, that's roleplaying, and good fun. If the player spends a heap of the game session arguing that the disadvantage shouldn't apply in this particular instance because of this particular circumstance just this once... that's boring.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;493915I'd agree with jhkim as regards behaviour.
 
The argument here bothers me since by this logic, isn't the same true of Advantages as Disadvantages, and anything else that benefits a character? For instance, to have a "fair" system here, should PCs instead of buying a Strength score initially, have to pay points only when they actually have to lift something heavy?

While that's not quite has horrible an idea as it sounds like at first, the short answer is still probably "no". As a GM, I do not want to spend a substantial amount of my time and effort making sure that each character's disadvantage list is addressed. On the other hand, I think creating game play that addresses the fundamental capabilities of the PCs is normal and expected. Further, unlike disadvantages, players will naturally seek to use their capabilities if it is appropriate to the problem at all.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;494061While that's not quite has horrible an idea as it sounds like at first, the short answer is still probably "no". As a GM, I do not want to spend a substantial amount of my time and effort making sure that each character's disadvantage list is addressed. On the other hand, I think creating game play that addresses the fundamental capabilities of the PCs is normal and expected. Further, unlike disadvantages, players will naturally seek to use their capabilities if it is appropriate to the problem at all.

Well, I'd think a good disadvantage system is one where the likely frequency of a disadvantage coming up in play is considered in its cost. I don't think I'd make much, if any, effort to actively impose disadvantages on players myself - this sort of GM metagaming really bothers me on a couple of levels - though, I don't consistently play any system that really has an intensive disadvantage system, maybe I'd crack after awhile...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;494164Well, I'd think a good disadvantage system is one where the likely frequency of a disadvantage coming up in play is considered in its cost.

Theoretically, yes. As noted earlier in the thread, however, this is actually impossible in practice unless you very narrowly constrain the range of acceptable gameplay. (And you'd probably still need to rigorously railroad your players.) Something as simple as "this time we're going to board the pirate ship" or "this time we're going to join the desert nomads" will radically alter the "likely frequency of a disadvantage coming up in play".

Now, the argument can be made that the same thing is true of positive character abilities. But as Caesar Slaad said, this is counter-balanced if the players are given liberty because the players will naturally seek out the scenarios and solutions that emphasize their strengths. (The guy with "Awesome Sailor" on his character sheet is more likely to join the pirate ship than the desert nomads.) This significantly normalizes the curve.

The outcome of this dynamic is pretty clear:

(1) Predetermined costs for positive abilities work whether the GM is railroading or not (as long as the railroad matches the expectations of the system).

(2) Predetermined disadvantage costs ONLY work if the GM is railroading and the railroad matches the expectations of the system.

(3) Constant disadvantages (that reward based on actual frequency of relevance in the game) work whether the GM is railroading or not. Ergo, they're better than predetermined costs (since they flexibly work for all styles).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;494184Now, the argument can be made that the same thing is true of positive character abilities. But as Caesar Slaad said, this is counter-balanced if the players are given liberty because the players will naturally seek out the scenarios and solutions that emphasize their strengths. (The guy with "Awesome Sailor" on his character sheet is more likely to join the pirate ship than the desert nomads.) This significantly normalizes the curve.

Players will naturally seek out scenarios and solutions that both emphasize their strengths and that de-emphasize their weaknesses.  However, it seems like you're treating it as if choices to emphasize strengths result in the "right" cost for advantages, whereas choices to de-emphasize weaknesses result in the "wrong" cost for disadvantages.  

Really, though, there is no firm line between advantages and disadvantages.  Someone could be weak in a field or situations because of either.  For example, someone might be weak in melee combat because of a disadvantage (vulnerability to blades) or because they lack key skills or abilities.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;494184The outcome of this dynamic is pretty clear:

(1) Predetermined costs for positive abilities work whether the GM is railroading or not (as long as the railroad matches the expectations of the system).

(2) Predetermined disadvantage costs ONLY work if the GM is railroading and the railroad matches the expectations of the system.

(3) Constant disadvantages (that reward based on actual frequency of relevance in the game) work whether the GM is railroading or not. Ergo, they're better than predetermined costs (since they flexibly work for all styles).

First of all, this assumes the double standard above - that players emphasizing strengths results in advantage costs working, while players de-emphasizing weaknesses results in disadvantage costs being broken.  

Moreover, this is ignoring the earlier point - which is that having the "right" cost or value is not the whole of the system.  Everyone can still have fun even if not every skill/power is used in proportion to its cost, and not every disadvantage is hit in proportion to its value.  For me, the more important issue is what kind of characters the system encourages creating, and what kind of behaviors it encourages in play.

Ultimately, I'm always happier when there are either no disadvantages, or where disadvantages do not generate any kind of points or bonuses.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Justin Alexander;494184Theoretically, yes. As noted earlier in the thread, however, this is actually impossible in practice unless you very narrowly constrain the range of acceptable gameplay. (And you'd probably still need to rigorously railroad your players.) Something as simple as "this time we're going to board the pirate ship" or "this time we're going to join the desert nomads" will radically alter the "likely frequency of a disadvantage coming up in play".
 
Now, the argument can be made that the same thing is true of positive character abilities. But as Caesar Slaad said, this is counter-balanced if the players are given liberty because the players will naturally seek out the scenarios and solutions that emphasize their strengths. (The guy with "Awesome Sailor" on his character sheet is more likely to join the pirate ship than the desert nomads.) This significantly normalizes the curve.
 
The outcome of this dynamic is pretty clear:
 
(1) Predetermined costs for positive abilities work whether the GM is railroading or not (as long as the railroad matches the expectations of the system).
 
(2) Predetermined disadvantage costs ONLY work if the GM is railroading and the railroad matches the expectations of the system.
 
(3) Constant disadvantages (that reward based on actual frequency of relevance in the game) work whether the GM is railroading or not. Ergo, they're better than predetermined costs (since they flexibly work for all styles).

On the 'likely frequency in play thing': at the point a character is generated, before the campaign the costs are fair in the sense that they're a fair bet: the player will have little knowledge of what is coming up ahead. Yes, there will still be variation in how often this actually comes up, but I'd still see it as being better than constant disadvantages.
 
In a constant system, these still get min/maxed, but with the trick being that the best disadvantages are those that actually apply in the widest range of circumstances with the lowest penalties and thus are the best sources of points. A disadvantage becomes a reward rather than a negative.
EDIT: and others have said this earlier. But yeah, "constant" disadvantages can only be said to be "better" if they work at all.