TheRPGSite

As I posted over on the Big Purple:

Let me explain. In many games, there are lists of disadvantages or something like that, where the player handicaps his character in exchange for something. In general, most games seem to handle this in one of two ways:

1. "Up Front": this means, for me, that the player is immediately given character points or something with which to spend on their character at character generation, with the idea that the disadvantage will hinder the character later, either by some sort of frequency or onset roll, or by GM fiat; it should be noted, however, that most games encourage the player to roleplay the disadvantage in question without the GM needing to remind them (GURPS, Hero, BESM, and Savage Worlds do it this way).

2. "Constant": you choose them, and while you play, you get some sort of in-game reward for having them when they come up, either by the player roleplaying the disadvantage and getting the reward after doing so, or with the GM (or other players) bringing it up in play and then the reward kicking in (Burning Wheel, FATE, Reign and Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition does it this way).

For me, I'm torn (thus the question). I'm running a FATE game now, and before that, ran Burning Empires. In both my players often forgot their disadvantageous traits and the like, but at the same time appreciated having them on the sheet and DID use them for in game rewards now and then. And sometimes, when I remembered to tag them or whatever, it made for fun in-game situations I might not have no thought of otherwise.

On the other hand, this is yet another thing a GM has to track. In Burning games, each player has 3 Beliefs, 3 Instinct, and who knows how many Traits; in theory, you're supposed to be pushing characters with these. In many FATE games, a player has 10 Aspects; some will be "just for skills" but the rest will be something story-like, and the GM ought to be tagging or compelling them. It has happened that either things in the game narrative didn't warrant their use, or it just seemed tedious to do so.

Thing is, in "Up Front" games, the GM still has to be aware of the disadvantages, since it's generally up to them to make the frequency roll or whatever, or, at their whim, to bring it up during play (unless the player does it themselves). So, the same sort of work, just, perhaps, less frequent. For some disadvantages, it isn't a big deal, but if the player got lots of freebie points for it, then you're supposed to be smacking them with it (like if a player has "Super Unlucky" or something).

Of course, there's choice 3 - no disadvantages at all. All incarnations of D+D do this, as do games like Traveller and, say, Paranoia. There are no explicit disadvantages, unless the player decides to roleplay his guy or gal that way. They get no explicit reward except for what happens in play (meaning, no defined extra XP or bennies or what have you).

My question is, which do you prefer, and why? Like I said, I'm torn on the matter. I've tried one way and the other and will be trying the third in a few months probably.

I prefer "up front" disadvantages as both a player and GM.

Part of character creation in my game is the *option* to roll on the Insanities tables and I encourage players to do this or choose a suitable insanity or personality quirk. I think it makes the game more fun and realistic too (after all, we all have our quirks in real life don't we?).

Having it up front gives the players the ability to incorporate the disadvantage into their role playing and it also gives the GM the ability to play on it. For example, if I know a PC is deathly afraid of the color plaid, I will most certainly incorporate that into the game when they're not expecting it... MuHAHAHAHA! (patented Evil GM laugh).

Of course, players may also pick up disadvantages during the course of the game due to trauma or injuries, but personally I prefer to have them up front. Consequently, I give serious XP for players who go out of their way to incorporate their disadvantages into their RPing.

None at all, too many players will take the most anti-social / negative disadvantages they can much like they'll play evil characters for fear of restriction.

On the other hand GURPS and HERO both postulate an in game reward for disadvantages.  An extra point or two per session for good roleplaying is a reward.  And no, you probably shouldn't give it out if they ignore their disadvantages.

I prefer a broader stat base and no disadvantages.

I prefer constant because the system balances itself through play. If you pick something that's very disadvantageous, you'll get constantly rewarded for it. If you pick something that isn't very disadvantageous, you won't.

Up-front systems, OTOH, depend heavily on pre-determining the content and play-style of a campaign. This means that they'll usually be horribly broken in practice. (IME, this often doesn't even require players to deliberately game the system.)

I don't like disadvantages. I think plenty enough will or can come up during play. Starting off with a broken leg so that you get a +1 on psychic strangulation is kind of shitty in my opinion.

I generally like constant, those that challenge the character, and overcoming it earns a bonus.

I don't like disadvantages that provide points for other parts of the character. They should be for roleplaying only. IF they provide no benefit points-wise, I love them.

I don't like upfront disadvantages in point buy systems. It does tend to invite min-maxing concerns even when it's not intentional.

There is a good argument for simply not having disadvantages represented by the system. In most groups I played in people enjoy roleplaying their character flaws for the fun of it, though I understand there are more result orientated groups in which playing out your flaws is frowned upon in as much as it's inefficient.

The Fate style "constant" isn't a bad compromise. I still find it can be woolly as hell, but it does act like a bridge between those player who want to roleplay their character's flaws because it's fun and interesting and those players who are happy to roleplay their character's flaw as long as there is a tactical advantage in doing so.

In a sense I think the success of Fate has been in finding common ground between the more fluffy and the more serious minded players.

Quote from: Soylent Green;492088In a sense I think the success of Fate has been in finding common ground between the more fluffy and the more serious minded players.

It's interesting. My group has one guy that LOVES the fate point tagging and compel. One guy who loathes it, and two guys who only care about it when they really want something, and ignore it entirely when they don't (and only push for compels when they're running low on fate points they intend to use to save themselves in the immediate future, or after a big ruckus and they note they're low). So, it's a bit weird.

I do plan to play something either front-loaded or completely without for the next campaign, just to see. And also to see how I feel. I have a suspicion that I'm super lazy and don't like having to track stuff like Constant requires; I might even be unhappy with the story-behind-the-scenes level needed for up front. Can't tell at the moment.

Pedantic aside: D&D has had a few different iterations of disadvantages, in its various forms.

I prefer none to be baked into the character at creation.

I find that both kinds of disadvantage encourage, among other things, gaming the character creation system; in my experience this takes head-space away from playing the game, makes character creation take longer, pushes interesting events into the past rather than allowing the interesting things to arise from play, reduces "experienced risk" by discouraging character mortality, and it can give rise to characters of greatly diverging mechanical efficiency, depending on the system.

I like "constant" ones, in play.

Something happens to a player's character, and the player chooses to make future decisions based on that occurrence's negative effect. They get a bit of an experience bonus for good roleplaying to compensate for less-efficient decisions made because of this "flaw" in play. There is no compensating "advantage" other than "you earn more XP because you have to work harder to adventure with the flaw". If the flaw hasn't made it harder for the player's character to succeed and survive by the end of a particular adventure, they get no extra XP.

I prefer that advantages are kept separate, and not paid for by disadvantages - they're rarely or never connected in real life, and the only reason to connect them in RPGs is to maintain power balance between characters. I'd rather do that in other ways.

I prefer character traits which are resources - once you use them to your advantage, you cross it off - and are advantages in some situations and disadvantages in others, like "Hot-headed". If it plays to your advantage, you get a bonus, right then. If it plays to your disadvantage, you can refresh another trait. It would be similar to playing Fate using only self-compels.

-clash

Quote from: Soylent Green;492088There is a good argument for simply not having disadvantages represented by the system. In most groups I played in people enjoy roleplaying their character flaws for the fun of it, though I understand there are more result orientated groups in which playing out your flaws is frowned upon in as much as it's inefficient.

The other thing about having them mechanically represented in character creation is that they can then act as in improv seed.

One would think that a blank sheet of paper represents the ultimate in creative potential. But every scrap of evidence we have suggests that we often see better results -- particularly in acts of group creativity -- by offering improv seeds.

QuoteThe Fate style "constant" isn't a bad compromise. I still find it can be woolly as hell, but it does act like a bridge between those player who want to roleplay their character's flaws because it's fun and interesting and those players who are happy to roleplay their character's flaw as long as there is a tactical advantage in doing so.

To clarify my earlier answer, I'm not a fan of Fate's particular instantiation of constant disadvantages because it seems to push the responsibility for balancing them back on to the GM in much the same way that up-front disadvantages.

Notably there is a difference in approach: In GURPS, the GM needs to include situations which are affected by a character's disadvantages because otherwise they got the points for free and balance is screwed up. In FATE, the GM needs to include situations which are affected by a character's aspects because otherwise the character doesn't get compelled and they don't gate fate points (and the system is balanced around having those points).

(Disclaimer: I have not actually played FATE, so this is all armchair theorist stuff. And I do know that players can compel their own characters, so the situation is more nuanced.)

My pet theory is that RPGs have gradually been making GMs more and more responsible for the players having fun. I'm not a fan of it.

"Constant", though my term is "per instance"

I came to rue "up front" disads because they seemed to invite abuse, even sometimes by otherwise "responsible" players. The mindset seemed to be to eyeball the disadvantages that the player thinks gives the player the least hassle per point. Further, the points are gratis if the situation never comes up.

Contrasting this with FATE, where if the situation never comes up, it's a wash, and your advantages may be disadvantages in certain situations, or vice-versa. And the way fate provides each character with a large palette of aspects to choose from, most characters will have plenty of opportunities to earn fate points even if a particular one never comes up.

Now that being said, depending on the system, nearly any disadvantage system can aggravate me. I'm not real big on PCs with dysfunctional behavior; being too giving can encourage a sort of "zany play" I don't enjoy running for or being in the same group with. I prefer disadvantage/aspect type systems that encourage interesting choices and create challenges more than those that encourage dysfunctional behavior.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;492142......................

Very cute handle. :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;492131To clarify my earlier answer, I'm not a fan of Fate's particular instantiation of constant disadvantages because it seems to push the responsibility for balancing them back on to the GM in much the same way that up-front disadvantages.

Contrariwise, while I find that many "dance for the GM" takes on fate/style/bennie points can place an aggravating over-reliance on the GM, FATE seems to encourage players to point out/ask about aspects in certain situations.

Nonetheless, I do agree the problem still exist, but still feel that even if the bulk of a character's aspects are overlooked in a typical FATE based game, it still leads to play filled with more interesting PC-driven complications than ones with no flaw-type system or with more regimented flaw system.

As always, YMMV.

Quote from: Numa Pompilius;492024My question is, which do you prefer, and why? Like I said, I'm torn on the matter. I've tried one way and the other and will be trying the third in a few months probably.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;492070I prefer constant because the system balances itself through play. If you pick something that's very disadvantageous, you'll get constantly rewarded for it. If you pick something that isn't very disadvantageous, you won't.

Up-front systems, OTOH, depend heavily on pre-determining the content and play-style of a campaign. This means that they'll usually be horribly broken in practice. (IME, this often doesn't even require players to deliberately game the system.)

My answer matches Justin's. Regarding the amount of work it imposes on the GM, I would say it is relative. What I do is make it part of the session prep, thinking on one or two disadvantages I can hit in game. That usually suffices.

Also, this things follow a pattern. Over time, my players tend to take less disadvantages because they realize I am going to use them. In my 7th sea game the first gen of PCs was loaded with Backgrounds and Hubris. When some of the players started a spin-off game, the number of disadvantages was really limited.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;492131In FATE, the GM needs to include situations which are affected by a character's aspects because otherwise the character doesn't get compelled and they don't gate fate points (and the system is balanced around having those points).

That's a popular fallacy. There is certainly a game culture around Fate and endorsed by Fate's own creators that advocates a very active Fate Point economy whereby Aspects are Compelled and Invoked in every scene.

I can see the attraction of this style of play but it's not a necessary condition to play Fate nor is the system balanced in a way to expect this (well maybe Dresden Files is, I'm not sure). The term Fate Point economy does not actually appear in most Fate rules books and in fact, by the rules, a GM simply replenish the player Fate Point Pools mid session if he feels it's appropriate. And actually in Fate 2.0 you can't actually have a Fate Point economy because Aspects work differently.

Which is to say if you have some Aspects that never get Compelled that's cool too as long as they mean something to the player.

Choice 3, for reasons others have said. It invites mini-maxing, taking disadvantages that the player thinks won't be disadvantages - which leads to arguments in play. "I'm Cowardly, but I can still enter the melee and stab that huge guy in the back!"
"Um, no."
"But -"
(etc)

It also requires the GM to keep track of players' characters. I don't even want to keep track of their hit points, why would I want to keep track of their disadvantages? Let the player worry about that stuff.

Write down your character's non-statted traits, if you want to. You don't have to roleplay them, though if your character is really inconsistent then NPCs will think you're crazy and the game group all get to make fun of you.

don't dig systems that give benies for such things, to gamey and to much time in chargen in some cases.
Let em come out in play for the sure FUN or "immersion" of it.
I encourage interesting backgrounds.
:)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;492191Choice 3, for reasons others have said. It invites mini-maxing, taking disadvantages that the player thinks won't be disadvantages - which leads to arguments in play. "I'm Cowardly, but I can still enter the melee and stab that huge guy in the back!"
"Um, no."
"But -"
(etc)

It also requires the GM to keep track of players' characters. I don't even want to keep track of their hit points, why would I want to keep track of their disadvantages? Let the player worry about that stuff.

Write down your character's non-statted traits, if you want to. You don't have to roleplay them, though if your character is really inconsistent then NPCs will think you're crazy and the game group all get to make fun of you.

sorry for the double post...this...:hatsoff:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;492191Choice 3, for reasons others have said. It invites mini-maxing, taking disadvantages that the player thinks won't be disadvantages - which leads to arguments in play. "I'm Cowardly, but I can still enter the melee and stab that huge guy in the back!"
"Um, no."
"But -"
(etc)

It also requires the GM to keep track of players' characters. I don't even want to keep track of their hit points, why would I want to keep track of their disadvantages? Let the player worry about that stuff.

Write down your character's non-statted traits, if you want to. You don't have to roleplay them, though if your character is really inconsistent then NPCs will think you're crazy and the game group all get to make fun of you.

This is what I'm probably going to be trying for the next campaign. In this case, Classic Traveller - nothing character defining beyond the skills and some fluff about the previous career. I'm curious what will happen to FATE Lover and FATE Hater in my group; I imagine the others will wiffle-waffle as always on what they like and don't like.

The reason, of course, is much of what you say. I'm finding it harder and harder to want to keep track of such things. They HAVE been helpful at times, but otherwise, I don't really remember to look it up while playing.

Take Burning Empires. When I ran it, I of course took player Beliefs into account, but it was more about scenario or game set up, not something I worried about while playing. At most, I kept my Figure of Note NPC Beliefs and Traits in mind as I had them do their scenes, but I wasn't keeping track of Artha awards or the like, for example. Nor their skill advancement stuff. In fact, it was often just background fluff, which is useful for setting a scene, but not much else.

I find that disadvantages and advantages that arise from events that actually play out in the game are far more easy for me to remember and play up/to.

Getting swallowed by one of the toads outside the moathouse in my character's very first fight was a much more memorable origin for several interesting phobias than "I wrote it on my character sheet to get some build points."

Even if I'd made up "I got swallowed by a toad" and written it on my sheet before starting to play the character - it still wouldn't have been as memorable as actually having it happen in play.

Events that happen in play have all sorts of strong associations - you remember who was there, what they rolled, what you did, what the monster did, etc.
The only association you have when you write a little story on your sheet is... writing on your sheet.

I prefer "up front" disadvantages, if I have to select one. I generally prefer none at all because I find the min/maxing game rather tedious. But since I explicitly state that any "up front" disads have to be approved by me, just like any character sheet, then it's easier for me to manage. I tend to ask players what's their character concept, why they need the "up front" disad so badly, and why they feel it would add to the campaign.

My experience with "constant" disads has not been as pleasant. It's just a fiddly track to add to GM bookkeeping and I find it added little to my storytelling. It felt more like kitchen sink GMing because of a sense of obligation to "get everyone involved" and tag their character aspects instead of shoving that responsibility to be engaged onto the players, as I believe it should be. Also, too often it became a contest to see who could chain the most ridiculous amounts of aspects into an explosion of nonsense -- or it froze players new to the system. It feels too gamey to me and just gets in the way of a good story. Each time I'm playing these systems the more and more I find that I don't like them at a core level.

ANY system that gives you points in exchange for disadvantages is likely to be hopelessly flawed.

The whole thing is just an invitation for players to game the system to min-max points available to them. At the very best, its a form of gambling, where you're trying to bet what disadvantage will give you the best ratio of free points vs. not actually ever being a real or meaningful disadvantage to you.

So systems that at least oblige the player to have to use the disadvantage disadvantageously in order to get the points is slightly better, but still poor, since its still an "odds" game the player is running, betting his disadvantage will be less bothersome to him than the extra points he gets.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;492471ANY system that gives you points in exchange for disadvantages is likely to be hopelessly flawed.

Heh. I see what you did there.

I think it's not bad to have upfront disadvantages... if you roll for them.

One good thing, one bad thing, roll 'em up. No minimaxing there :)

It's still up to the GM to remember all that shit, but at least it's only one thing per PC.

Quote from: Soylent Green;492187I can see the attraction of this style of play but it's not a necessary condition to play Fate nor is the system balanced in a way to expect this (well maybe Dresden Files is, I'm not sure). The term Fate Point economy does not actually appear in most Fate rules books and in fact, by the rules, a GM simply replenish the player Fate Point Pools mid session if he feels it's appropriate. And actually in Fate 2.0 you can't actually have a Fate Point economy because Aspects work differently.

\

I stand corrected, then.

I don't like them/want them.
If I want my character to be a drunk I don't need 'rewards' for that. Since... probably the first RPG I played, I've written down character traits ('brave', 'lecherous', 'afraid of snakes') on my character sheets... since when did those roleplaying cues require hard-coding into the rules?

There's a contingent who keep pushing for ads/disads to be added to BRP core rules ('cause it's dated without them!')... I think they're trying to make it over in the image of Savage Worlds... or something.

I think I've got a slightly different view.  My main concern is less with players getting away with something, and more with how it changes play of the game.  

Pros:

1) Disads encourage some character concepts that would otherwise be skipped.  If it's the same cost to have a Superman who is immune to kryptonite and a Superman who is not, then the player is usually going to choose to be immune.  Of course, some players will voluntarily give their PC a fear of snakes without reward, but many do not.  

2) Slight corollary to the above, disads that fit the character can often good for firing up ideas for scenarios that are tied to the PCs.  

Negligible:

1) Personally, I am only mildly concerned with players getting something for free.  Ultimately, game balance is mostly an illusion anyway, so I don't consider it a terrible thing if a player gets 130 points when he really should have only gotten 110 points.  If I'm bending over backwards changing around my preparation to hit the PCs' disads, I'm just making work for myself.  

Cons:

1) "Up front" disads can be bad if they encourage loading up on a ton of disads that let the player push into much higher power.  i.e. Having a one-legged, cross-eyed midget albino lets a player get psionic power to constantly be invisible and fly.  I think this is easily handled by having a low cap on how many points you can get from disads - which some systems do, though many systems the cap isn't low enough in my opinion.  

2) Many disadvantage systems encourage having 5+ fairly mild disadvantages for each PC.  That's too much to keep track of, and doesn't add a lot to characterization, in my opinion.  I say 2-3 max is a good rule of thumb.  

3) "Constant" disadvantage systems can means that the players are encouraged to keep finding ways to invoke the disad with minimal risk.  Basically the same logic that would happen up front (i.e. "how can I get the most points for minimal problems") continues to happen throughout the game.  This can be a distraction, where instead of focusing on role-playing how their character consciously tries to avoid their own weakness - a player acts on an out-of-character way to make sure their weakness comes up.  

4) 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.

Quote from: jhkim;492753Pros:

1) Disads encourage some character concepts that would otherwise be skipped.  If it's the same cost to have a Superman who is immune to kryptonite and a Superman who is not, then the player is usually going to choose to be immune.  Of course, some players will voluntarily give their PC a fear of snakes without reward, but many do not.  

This only counts as a pro if we believe that the kind of player who would not voluntarily take on a flaw is ultimately misguided. We are basically saying "I know you would rather play a character with no obvious weaknesses, but if you give this 'vulnerability to kryptonite' thing a chance you might find you'll enjoy it".

Okay, that's not as absurd as it sounds, we've all been persuaded to taste that odd looking exotic dish or to try that crazy activity we never imagined we'd enjoy.

However what is more likely to happen is that this player will simply cover his character in lead all the time because unless there a genuine buy-in into the concept that roleplaying flaws are interesting you are going nowhere.

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.

Essentially it's true, you can expect players to metagame the hell out of everything.

This is especially so if they feel RPGs are something to "win against," in spite of other people involved and this being ideally a shared form of fun. I don't think there's a way to take that aspect of human nature out of games in general, which is why I don't want it as system option present if I can avoid it. But if it's going to be there by the system's own emphasis, letting players take a big dump on the shared table experience, I found having it less in my face repeatedly tends to keep my blood pressure down. YMMV.