Hedonist might work as -1 to doing things that would be uncomfortable, but I'm stumped on Overconfident.
-- Eric, who liked the LotRs about a 100 times more than he thought he would.
Hi Eric,
I'm offering several options for each, because a lot depends on the Will descriptor and the way sorcery works for that character. Pleasure-based sorcery, for instance, wouldn't go well with the first and third options for my Hedonism suggestions, but it would go well with the second.
My thoughts on "Hedonistic" might include:
-1 to any rolls while in a pleasurable situation
-1 to "get it together" Will rolls (and these are a big deal in combat; I'm talking about the roll that ennables the character to ignore damage)
-1 to all Lore rolls
"Overconfident" has been a pain in the butt personality descriptor ever since it was assigned 20 whole friggin' points in Champions. That's a whole discussion right there.
The trouble is to break the long-standing player assumption that taking "overconfident" as a so-called disadvantage means that you get be a butthead player - AND get extra points! Cool!
As a Price in Sorcerer, I'd suggest one of the following, or similar:
-1 to one's first action in any scene whatsoever
-1 to one's Binding rolls
-1 to any perception-oriented roll (which, in Sorcerer, can be based on any score)
Best,
Ron
Quote
-1 to any rolls while in a pleasurable situation
-1 to any perception-oriented roll (which, in Sorcerer, can be based on any score)
Those two work best for the characters in question. Thanks.
Quote
"Overconfident" has been a pain in the butt personality descriptor ever since it was assigned 20 whole friggin' points in Champions. That's a whole discussion right there.
Our group is one where the game we've played the most and the most successful campaigns we've had have been in Champions, so a Champions mindset does tend to color what we do. I'm going to try to watch for that as people are making their demons.
-- Eric, who always thought "mute" was worth more points than any of his GMs did.
FWIW, Marvel SAGA has a great use for the Overconfident flaw -- IIRC, the character can only use their highest card once they get into dire situations (like, near-death and stuff). Otherwise, their high cards (9's) are treated as 0's. Ouch, that's bad.
Completely useless information, but there ya go.
Actually Jared, that might be workable. What if overconfident meant you carried over one less success unless you were in a life threatening situation? Or, indeed, all the time? It reflects an unwillingness to prepare because, after all, who needs preperation?
Drew & Jared,
Drew's suggestion is pretty solid, basically the same as my example of "paranoid" in the rules. You lose a die on everything, unless something really is overtly trying to get you.
I'm not sure I can see a Price that would lay a -1 on every roll the character makes, although I accept a broad range of "frequency" of when the -1 applies.
Based on previous role-playing experience, a lot of people think "disadvantages" are (1) momentary or occasional inconveniences, (2) ongoing penalties that can be minimaxed out of existence (e.g. using points gained from "crippled" to buy "super-flight), or (3) role-playing guidelines (and hence not disadvantages at all). I've tried hard to define Prices and provide examples that break this set of assumptions.
Best,
Ron
QuoteThe trouble is to break the long-standing player assumption that taking "overconfident" as a so-called disadvantage means that you get be a butthead player - AND get extra points! Cool!
As a Price in Sorcerer, I'd suggest one of the following, or similar:
-1 to one's first action in any scene whatsoever
-1 to one's Binding rolls
-1 to any perception-oriented roll (which, in Sorcerer, can be based on any score)
I like that last one, but I would make it specifically perception-oriented rolls with regards to sizing up others, and play that up as a GM during the game (i: "Yeah, he's got a gun, but you could take him." or for a more non-combat-oriented ex: "Yeah, you've got them right where you want them now; they're way out of their league in negotiating this kind of deal").