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.

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.