Difference between revisions of "Disadvantages"

Revision as of 00:39, 30 June 2017

Disadvantages

Disadvantages are how we represent a character's foibles and vulnerabilities, both in their personal character and their fictional paradigm. Disadvantages often get shorthanded to flaws (or +flaws). All characters apped on MCM are expected to have a minimum of three Disadvantages; they can have more but it's not strictly necessary. Disadvantages, much like Advantages, are sorted into three tiers: Trouble, Significant, and Minor.

Disadvantage Policy and Philosophy

Disadvantages fundamentally represent the oft-overlooked fact that a well-written character in any form of media is defined as much by their shortcomings as well as their abilities. In fact, it is usually these human flaws that get them into most of their adventures, and their most exciting crises, in the first place. Disadvantages do not exist to “balance out” your character's strengths with weaknesses like RPG character creation, but as accessible hooks for scene runners and other players to create RP from. They exist to embroil your character in interesting situations, add new dimensions to existing RP, and to give people easy ways to get into interacting about your character and to bring attention to them. For that reason, players are strongly advised to app Disadvantages that they will actually enjoy playing, and wish to be brought up during play. For the same reason, there are a couple of types of Disadvantage that are generally unacceptable in character applications.

Non-Flaws

These are Disadvantages which self-negate, are obviated by other aspects of the character, or which effectively do nothing. These most often happen where weak language allows a character to weasel out of their flaws where it's inconvenient to be fallible, but can also happen when another part of the character essentially makes them impossible to invoke, such as being terrified of fire, but having the ability to shut off emotions, for instance. An example of a Non-Flaw follows:

Hot-Headed Guy: Hero A is a very hot-headed guy. He gets angry easily and rushes his way into problems constantly. However, if he knows someone is trying to make him get angry, he's smart enough to stop himself from getting baited into making these mistakes. He also listens to his allies when they tell him to calm down or they need him to keep an even head for the mission.

Normally, this Disadvantage could be a great Trouble, or at least worthy of a Significant place, but the way it's written explicitly excludes someone playing Hero A with his anger, or from his anger inconveniencing a mission. He can effectively back out of any potential consequences caused by losing his temper whenever it would be to his detriment, and that makes it a half-hearted flaw with very poor hook material.

Faction Intrinsic Flaws

Likewise, there are a narrow variety of Disadvantages that are simply “the downside of being in a particular faction”. Frequently, these are pretty weak on their own anyways, but they can be judged flat out non-flaws in some circumstances. For instance, being an extreme vigilante who is hunted by the law, is not a very strong Disadvantage for a member of the Watch, who is essentially signing up for being on the wrong side of the law by default. A stoic refusal to ever break the law, judged universally, is also not a great Disadvantage for a Paladin, as it will never create conflict that being in the Paladins doesn't already. These would have to be expanded upon, or greatly exacerbated to be valid. Maybe the vigilante has a womanizing streak that makes them abandon or screw up plans the Watch has given them if ladies are involved, or the lawman always adheres to local, rather than universal laws, out of adamant respect for culture, some of which the Paladins may believe are unjust or find abhorrent. It's worth noting that blatantly faction intrinsic flaws probably won't be approved even on an unaffiliated character, for the complications that presents if they then join the relevant faction.

Theme-Specific Disadvantages

These are Disadvantages that on really apply within a specific setting, or require their player to go far out of the way to bring on themselves. Common examples are being hunted by a character or faction that nobody is playing (or likely will play) from their theme, experiencing a negative reaction to a specific place in their homeworld, or being weak to a kind of Advantage that only someone from their theme would have access to.

Outright Crippling Disadvantages

Lastly, there are Disadvantages that are so overwhelmingly disabling to the character that it becomes uncomfortable for other players to invoke them, because it would likely result in a very dirty instant win. Having a weak point that instantly defeats you, or having a vulnerable and comatose body somewhere else like in the Matrix, are examples of Disadvantages which technically read as valid flaws, but which will never come up, because very few people will be willing to invoke these kinds of automatically crippling triggers. These may still be used, especially as demanded by an FC's canon, but may only ever be Minor Disadvantages.

Disadvantage Structure

All characters apped on MCM are expected to have a minimum of 3 Disadvantages, at least one of which must be a Trouble, and at least one of which must be Significant. A character may have more than 3 Disadvantages so long as they meet those requirements, though it is not strictly necessary. Of course, the total Disadvantage list should fit under 4kb out of buffer concerns.

Minor

A Minor Disadvantage can be just about anything that inconveniences your character to a reasonable extent. It can be an everyday annoyance, a deficiency that comes up frequently but has low impact, a stronger issue that is very niche and will happen rarely, or a significant weakness that the character strives to mitigate with reasonable effectiveness, though one they can't totally erase. These are usually played for flavour.

Significant

A Significant Disadvantage can likewise take just about any form, but is expected to be a serious, concrete deficiency, flaw or weakness, that could hypothetically be used against your character. It could be a weakness to silver, a severe phobia of fire, being trusting to the point of gullibility, being strongly pacifistic, partial paralysis, a hypnotic trigger, a broad prejudice, a repulsive habit or behaviour, an oath to never defeat an enemy through subterfuge or dishonesty, an inability to lie, susceptibility to unusual forms of harm, resilience to beneficial magic, an overpowering urge to consume blood, a delusion which the character frequently acts upon, etc. Like any Disadvantage, these should be things that you would enjoy seeing come up, and the best ones are those that spotlight your character. It's inadvisable to pick Significant Disadvantages that will break your fun, or only serve as aggravating “nerfs”.

Trouble

A Trouble is roughly equivalent to a Defining Disadvantage in concept. It's an aspect of the character, or a culmination of several aspects, that define who they are and secure their place in their theme as much as their most iconic abilities do. Without their Trouble, a character would no longer be recognizable as themselves. True to its name, a Trouble is the Disadvantage that is the root source of most of the trouble the character gets themselves in, whether they bring those hardships on themselves or not. It serves as a primary hook to engage them in scenarios, to catch their attention, and to enrich the situations they find themselves in with complications and conflicts, as the basis of good fiction.

A Trouble absolutely, non-negotiably, has to be rooted in the character's intrinsic personality. A Trouble cannot be a combat weakness or physical limitation, nor can it be an externally imposed curse or compulsion. These things say nothing about the character themselves, and often leave them squeaky clean with all their problems being “not their fault”. Troubles also cannot be something that can be “fixed” or totally mitigated, or else “turned off” when they would be inconvenient. That said, Troubles do not have to be all about how your character is a terrible person. Any side of your character as a person that makes their life more difficult, which causes them to take sub-optimal courses of action, or else just makes them just objectively wrong from time to time, can constitute a Trouble. These can even be sympathetic or otherwise admirable aspects, that the character is simply so wrapped up in that it becomes a root cause of their conflicts.

Trouble Examples

e.x. Marty McFly from Back to the Future is so insecure about how other people perceive his confidence and machismo, that he will effectively do just about anything, no matter how reckless or dangerous, if called a chicken or a coward. If someone questions if he has the guts, he will leap at the chance to prove that he does, even when doing so is obviously an absolutely terrible idea.

e.x. Batman's obsession with thwarting crime and punishing villains, but without ever killing another human being, is something fundamentally ingrained in his character. He dedicates his life to pursuing criminals and crazies wherever he hears word of them, but makes things much more difficult by himself by refusing to make the frequently pragmatic choice of using lethal force, going to great pains to capture his marks alive and in relatively one piece. Villains commonly exploit this as a known fact to give themselves an edge over him, to make themselves harder to catch, and oftentimes they break out of jail almost immediately, making his problems never-ending, when he could have just shot the Joker a hundred times by then.

e.x. Gilgamesh from the Fate/ series is known for his incredible arrogance. He looks down on anyone and everyone, and talks down to them too, refusing to ally himself with anyone who doesn't completely defer to him as their superior. He rejects help from anyone who doesn't admit to being his inferior, and often refuses to take opponents seriously, even when in severe danger in either case. Everything is a matter of pride to him, and it makes him touchy, difficult to work with, and it frequently bites him in the ass when he underestimates a foe, or stubbornly refuses to get serious.

e.x. Natsu Dragneel from Fairy Tail is a heroic kind of guy who loves to help people and defeat badguys, but he's also kind of a blockhead who wants to fight at every opportunity he can get. He is prone to squabbling with strong allies and then challenging them to brawls to settle the score, often just to test their strength. Even when focused on task, he constantly gets carried away and causes massive collateral damage that results in a lot of angry people he was trying to protect, and tremendous bills. To make matters worse, he totally loses his cool when he sees an ally, or even a sympathetic potential ally, being abused or belittled, and will attempt to fight to the death even when he is clearly utterly outclassed.

A Word on Heroic Recklessness and Sacrifice

A penchant for leaping into danger without thinking, and putting oneself in harm's way at the drop of a hat to save the day and protect the innocent, is a highly common trait shared by heroic characters, and often very easy to slap on as their Trouble without much thought. To be perfectly clear, this kind of thing is actually a totally acceptable Trouble in a great many cases, however it is one that known for being misplayed, and PCs who are defining themselves by their penchant for risky heroics are PCs that we want to see sincerely playing up that angle. A character who has this sort of thing for their Trouble, but who always stops shy of ever exposing their character to harm, hardship and risks outside the usual, is essentially gaming the system. We understand this can be difficult in clear cut situations where six other players are going to back up whatever you do, and so we don't expect it to happen in every scene, but it is something we attempt to watch for.