Ever notice how, in RPGs that grant PCs advantages and disadvantages, PCs tend to use their advantages all the time while rarely being hindered by disadvantages?
Most games I’ve run that use some version of disadvantages (or drawbacks, flaws, negative feats – you get the idea) implicitly give creative players ways to ignore them. Some players may select disadvantages that aren’t really disadvantages at all (e.g. the impulsive, overconfident bully) while others select disadvantages that rarely affect their characters (the one-eyed barbarian that has a penalty to ranged attacks but only ever wades into combat with his battle axe).
In addition, many disadvantage systems require the GM to “trigger” them, meaning that if an opportunity for the disadvantage comes up and the GM misses it, then the player quietly gets away with it (I’m not necessarily blaming the player here; I’ve known many players that forget the disadvantages on their sheets just as often as their advantages). This is especially true of “roleplay” disadvantages*.
A little over a decade ago I discovered 7th Sea, which used a different mechanic. Rather than grant points that could be used immediately in building a character, 7th Sea had ‘Backgrounds,’ such as Cursed or Obligation, which granted a PC double its XP value whenever the background was the focus of an adventure (tangentially, this also encouraged the GM to weave PC backgrounds into the adventures).
This could easily be ported into other systems, either as-is (disadvantages grant extra XP, not character creation points) or as a hybrid system (disadvantages grant character creation points and extra XP when used). For the latter especially I’d suggest limiting extra XP to situations where the disadvantage actually hindered the character, rather than simply being triggered.
I’ve used this system in other games and I’ve found that it tends to take the burden off me to remember to trigger disadvantages; in many cases the affected player actively plays her disadvantages. It also ensures that the disadvantage, especially a roleplay disadvantage, truly becomes part of the character, rather than an occasional hindrance that’s mostly ignored.
So how about you? Do you use a disadvantage system like this? Would you consider it? What problems do you see with using it?
*A “roleplay” disadvantage is one that requires a triggering event rather than a straight mechanical disadvantage (although a mechanical penalty may also be applied to roleplay disadvantages). “Lame” is a mechanical disadvantage as it always imposes a modifier to movement checks, while “compulsive gambler” is something that requires a triggering event (the GM mentioning a card game in the corner of the pub) to activate. If the GM forgets to point out the card game and the player doesn’t ask, then the disadvantage isn’t activated.
Legend of the Five Rings, also by AEG (7th Sea essentially uses a sort of 2.5 Edition of L5R’s rules) has a hybrid system. Disadvantages are worth extra XP at the start, and worth 1 more XP every time they provide a significant hindrance.
In Mouse Guard, Traits are not positive or negative inherently. Using them positively gives you bonuses to rolls, but using them negatively, such as breaking ties in your enemy’s favor, grant you a resource you can spend to direct the plot during the appointed “Player’s Turn”.
In Edge of the Empire, players have Obligations, which are things like being indebted to a Hutt, or some such negative situation. There is a numerical amount attached to the “size” of the Obligation, and the GM rolls to see if someone’s Obligation will become a major hindrance for the session – if it does, the players take mental Stress damage right out of the gate, with the player’s whose obligation has arisen takes double Stress… definitely makes it hard to ignore!
In a way, players taking disadvantages that aren’t a major hindrance makes sense. Why would someone who is one eyed become an archer if they can’t see well to shoot accurately? I think I prefer systems like Mouse Guard though – Why in most games is something like “Small” a disadvantage? Sure, it reduces your damage output because you’re maybe a bit weaker, but shouldn’t it also make hiding a touch easier?
The only system that comes to my mind granting XP for disadvantages is World of Darkness. In my experience players never took disadvantes in WoD Systems. Evan if players asked, if they could get disadvanteges during character creation, they decided against taking any disadvanteges as soon as they heard how they work.
If you are using XP as a motivator, then the suggested system might work, but then not having any disadvantages becomes a disadvantage itself. How many bonus XP can you give to motivate players to make a disadvantage become part of the character, while you keep the powerlevel balanced in the group?
I’ve never really cared for the way most games handle Advantages (perpetual bonus) and Disadvantages (occasional penalty).
I’ve never played 7th Sea, but I like how you describe it handles Disadvantages. It provides incentive for the player to want to roleplay the Disadvantage and also to remind the GM of it in case an appropriate situation comes up and the GM has forgotten about it. The current game I’ve been delving into (RQ6) doesn’t really have Disadvantages, but I would consider implementing them using the the 7th Sea method.
Interesting idea. I think Nex’s comments on WOD’s take on adv/disadv is accurate; however, it’s also dependant on how the Storyteller weaves in those flaws – or if he does at all.
My question to Walt and anyone reading this post is how would you weave such a system – increasing XP awards – to Pathfinder if a GM levels the whole party at once? That’s what I do, tying levels to story benchmarks rather than accounting tables. Our group prefers it, and it works for us. While we have no formal home system of merits/flaws, incorporating character background elements is something we do…and incentivizing the tough stuff through awards sounds good. But how to do that given that I level the whole party at once?
Thoughts, please.
The comment regarding Pathfinder is interesting, and highlights another reason why I like Savage Worlds: Characters do not need to be kept at the same levels, with the GM struggling to make sure the challenge ratings are “fair” for all.
A Savage World character doesn’t get any tougher to kill as he/she gets more experience (in general, there are exceptions to that but they work in a different way to trad D&D family games), they just get more strings to their bow as it were.
A Novice character can make a solid and worthwhile contribution in a party of Seasoned and Veteran characters. In D&D-style games a low-level character is marginalized in such a high-level party and has little role to play.
I’m interested in how people would deal with Lyle.spade’s conundrum.
The last game I GMed was L5R, which has a hybrid system described above. I modified the rule slightly though, giving XP to everyone when someone’s disadvantage came up. Sure, it upped the XP gain per game a bit, but it also made the players police themselves and each other. Worked out pretty well, imo.
Dangling XP will always work, but it will encourage mechanical play too. Pavlovian response, see?
I see the problem as an indicator of immature role playing style (as in not fully developed), which is why I have a fondness for the Savage Worlds system, in which hindrances usually have an on-the-sheet impact. Only got one leg? Good luck running and those agility-based skills are going to take a smack to the hurtybits. Short-sighted? By all means wear eyeglasses but don’t get into melee if you do.
Sometimes it requires a bit more on the part of the GM too. That one-eyed barbarian would be seriously disadvantaged on the side he was blind, making for an easier attack from that flank. Any ambushing rogue-type will sneak attack from that blind side too, and pickpockets will use that side for an easy approach while he is dining at an inn.
That said, I always include “Quirk” as a minor (one point) hindrance in any pregen I make, and ask the player to make something up to fit and to roleplay it. If they don’t, no foul. But often I will discover a good roleplayer with whom I will try to game again.
Probably the biggest whine for me is the hindrance/disadvantage that inflicts a situational penalty – the situations arise but the player forgets or “forgets” and I have more than enough to do without remembering what a player has lumbered his character with in a given situation.
This comes up at the worse times too, like the player attempting to leave the theater of action (a fierce firefight) a couple of weeks ago in Deadlands:Reloaded only to have to turn around again because he mentioned he was Loyal and had a Death Wish (which was shortly thereafter fulfilled). His protests were pitiful but as I told him “It ain’t my job to play your character for you, and you chose those disadvantages”.
I’m inured now to such cries of distress, though they usually come the round after some character gets wounded and only *then* chooses to read the descriptions of his edges and finds a situational bonus he didn’t apply. My stock answer is the same in both situations.
I liked the way Stargate SG-1 (d20) handled disadvantages. They counted as Feats (yes, it took a Feat slot to get one, they didn’t give you an extra Feat). The advantage they gave was extra XP whenever the disadvantage was used. It didn’t have to be the focus of the session, it just had to come into play – and the more difference it made in the game, the more XP the player got.
The result was that players could take no disadvantages at all and not be behind. They would actually end up with more Feats than those who did take disadvantages, just be a little behind the experience curve – and in practice, they were never more than one level behind the others anyway. The players who did take disadvantages were encouraged to use them – but they could be overcome at critical moments (a trope in fantasy/sci-fi that most disadvantage system miss): for example, the player could decide not to bring their “cowardice” disadvantage into play if freezing up would cause disaster. If they did use the disadvantage and it led to big problems for their character, the XP bonus was increased.
“the player could decide not to bring their “cowardice†disadvantage into play if freezing up would cause disaster”
So, not a disadvantage at all, then?
Still a disadvantage in that they lose a Feat and get nothing in return – so yeah, a disadvantage.
They only get the bonus XP if they actually use the disadvantage, which serves as a motivator to get them to do so – instead of getting bonus feats/skills/whatever and then conveniently ignoring the disadvantages. Getting the players to want to use their disadvantages just as much as their advantages is a great way to actually roleplay a character, instead of just playing a model in a miniatures wargame.
This also takes care of the “one-eyed barbarian who only fights melee” problem – if the disadvantage doesn’t come up in play then they wasted a Feat they could have spent to get Greater Cleave or something instead.
Notably, Stargate is a derivative of Spycraft. Spycraft was designed by the same team that designed 7th Sea. The similarity is not accidental.
Oh, I’d also forgotten about the western game Aces and Eights, where you can choose your disadvantages, or you can roll them, and they are worth more XP if you roll them. They can be anything from a fear of snakes, to you have tuberculosis and the GM secretly rolls the day TB will kill you (if bullets don’t beat it to the punch).
My favourite way of handling this matter has been with the Cortex system. PCs get “plot points” every time a disadvantage comes into play. Plot points can be used to boost die rolls and otherwise affect the game world. Since these benefits are momentary, they add to the drama of the game without affecting party balance in the long term.
The best disadvantage system that I’ve seen is in Hollow Earth Expedition. Some here have already given examples from other games how it works. When the player activates it, they will get XP. The brilliant thing about this is that you don’t need to rate the disadvantages. If you’re blind, you will get more points than if you’re afraid of UFOs.
But honestly, do you need this? The sad thing is that the points you get are boring. All they do is boosting another value. I would like to see a system where you choose three disadvantages during character creation and when you fail at a skill, you (or the GM) must include one of your disadvantages when describing the failure. After each session, you may exchange one disadvantage for another.
Because the flaws are really what gives flavour to the character.
Fate’s great at this; in recent versions, they explicitly encourage you to take a recurring disadvantage (your character’s trouble aspect).
From the first version on, you were only paid out (in fate points) when your disadvantage affects the story. I like the interplay and the way that it encourages players to remember their disadvantages and play to them–so they can get the fate points that power their cool aspects.
I also like that the flow of fate points can match the flow of fiction, with early setbacks (disadvantages manifesting) providing depth and the fate points that fuel the character’s against all odds final assault.
I’d be harsher. Characters walk into a busy tavern and one of them is supposed to be a compulsive gambler, but nobody mentions the card game in the corner? (Of COURSE there’s a card game in the corner! Having to ask if there’s a card game going on would be like having to ask if there was beer.) He doesn’t either join the game or at least make a roll to resist?
No session XP for him, then. And afterward we have a little out-of-character chat about whether he actually gets what “role playing” is about, or whether he’d be happier with video games. 😉