20 New M&M Weaknesses (10pt/5pt/2pt)

[DMScott]

Arch Nemesis:

Two comments here - first, a hero who doesn't have an arch-nemesis after his first few outings either isn't doing his job or is fighting well under his weight class, otherwise it's pretty much a comic book convention and as such hard to class as a disadvantage. That leads into the second one - most PCs will likely pick up an arch-nemesis during play, it's hard to see why the ones who specified one beforehand should get points for it.

Life Bound:
Cursed:
Damned:
Thrall:
Finite Powered:
Haunted:
Possessed:
Incurable Illness:
Pact:
Host Dependency (For Symbiotic characters):
Symbiotic Dependency (For Symbiotic characters):
Implanted:

These all seem more appropriate as plot devices or general background than statted out weaknesses to me. Mechanics - if any - will vary from case to case, since it's unlikely one general set of rules will cover all situations.

Dependants:

I never really understood this one in Champions; "I am a functioning member of society, and so I have a weakness". It works OK with the roll-for-appearance mechanic in Champs and a creative GM, but in the less structured world of M&M I'm happy to see it go.

Hunted:

Again, in Champs this weakness basically means "you're a superhero so you have recurring enemies". Absent Hero's mechanics for exactly valuing a disad - which makes morphing stale hunteds as the campaign goes on a fairly precise process - it's not one that seems to fit M&M to me. Another problem is that in a typical group, any hunted that one of them gets tends to end up taking on the whole group to get at their target - there's no reason only one person should get the points if all are inconvenienced. Might be neat to run a campaign where everybody specifically has the same hunted, but otherwise I don't know if I'd allow this one in my game.

Programmed (Constructs only):
Data (Constructs only):

Can't comment on these since I don't allow constructs as PCs.

Imaginary:

Not a bad concept, but it seems to me it'd be better built using flaws on powers. All those will saves look a bit clunky to me, particularly on a PC.

Mental Disorder:

This is already in the book, under the general heading of "Quirk".

Dependency:

I like this sort of weakness for super-dependencies (i.e. some super-soldier type who has to take a regular dose of several drugs or lose his superhuman powers), but not when it applies more generally to problems like "normal" addiction or gambling. The latter are better handled as plot devices, IMHO. I'm uncomfortable with trying to quantify everything that could go wrong with a character, and I don't think a character's battle with his personal demons should be left to the dice.

Overall, the real problem I have with a long list of weaknesses is that you then get some players who want points for all of them on the one hand, and other players who will undergo the effects of the weakness without getting the points on the other. For me, the list in the book is pretty much fine since it makes it clear that not every super has weaknesses that grant points. Offering weakness points for many of the standard comic book conventions - like having an arch-nemesis, or having some government agency after you - implies that every hero has one weakness, or often several. This is a change (albeit not a huge one) in the way M&M seems to have done things.

 

[Neo]

Two comments here - first, a hero who doesn't have an arch-nemesis after his first few outings either isn't doing his job or is fighting well under his weight class, otherwise it's pretty much a comic book convention and as such hard to class as a disadvantage. That leads into the second one - most PCs will likely pick up an arch-nemesis during play, it's hard to see why the ones who specified one beforehand should get points for it.

Not really as I mention above there is a big difference between having people who want tog et thier own back because you beat them or foiled their plan and those whose entire reason for getting up in the morning is to cause you more misery... its the difference between having villains you beat as part of your daily life to the villains who could care less about anything BUT you specifically.

These all seem more appropriate as plot devices or general background than statted out weaknesses to me. Mechanics - if any - will vary from case to case, since it's unlikely one general set of rules will cover all situations.

The old plot device rational holds no water with me im afraid :d technically everything is a plot device so why have rules for anything. Heck the adventures we run are plot devices..they get the group from point A to point B in a story.., the heroes themselves are a plot device for without it no story could unfold and so on and so forth... plot device as a rationale for not detailing things in that way is a lazy GM's get out of jail free card and not one I use.

I never really understood this one in Champions; "I am a functioning member of society, and so I have a weakness". It works OK with the roll-for-appearance mechanic in Champs and a creative GM, but in the less structured world of M&M I'm happy to see it go.

I explained the rationale for this one in previous posts its fairly straightforward and because players prefer it that way. Not every player wants to save thier girlfriend from being dropped off the golden gate bridge every other adventure, or save Aunt May from the predations of venom constantly.. not every player wants that kind of complication. Hence as a weakness it allows only those who wish to open themselves up for such liabilities to have to deal with them.

Again, in Champs this weakness basically means "you're a superhero so you have recurring enemies". Absent Hero's mechanics for exactly valuing a disad - which makes morphing stale hunteds as the campaign goes on a fairly precise process - it's not one that seems to fit M&M to me. Another problem is that in a typical group, any hunted that one of them gets tends to end up taking on the whole group to get at their target - there's no reason only one person should get the points if all are inconvenienced. Might be neat to run a campaign where everybody specifically has the same hunted, but otherwise I don't know if I'd allow this one in my game.

again big difference between people you upset or interfer with compared to those whose specific aggend is to bring you specifically down.

Not a bad concept, but it seems to me it'd be better built using flaws on powers. All those will saves look a bit clunky to me, particularly on a PC.

that would be a save and only necessary when applicable, hardly clunky Imaginary is afar more than a plaw on a power its fundamental to a characters concept and has the potential for significant implications, definitely worthwhile of being a weakness imo.

This is already in the book, under the general heading of "Quirk".

I think Mental Disorder is a bit more rewarding of its own detail than a Quirk... im sure anyone with a mental disorder would be vastly amused of the notion of their problem being referred to as a mere quirk A lisp or nervous twitch is a quick... a disorder is substantially more

Besides quirks are detailed separately and work in many different ways as the Quirks shown in Crooks illustrate. quirk is a catchall title for many different things and work in many different ways..but they still need detailing individual as was done in Crooks as I say.

I like this sort of weakness for super-dependencies (i.e. some super-soldier type who has to take a regular dose of several drugs or lose his superhuman powers), but not when it applies more generally to problems like "normal" addiction or gambling. The latter are better handled as plot devices, IMHO. I'm uncomfortable with trying to quantify everything that could go wrong with a character, and I don't think a character's battle with his personal demons should be left to the dice.

Dependencies are not restricted purely to substance abuse.. there are many many forms of dependency and that is what the weakness is there to show. though again as a plot device just doesn't hold no water with me.. to say Tony Starks alcoholism is a plot device may be true, but it nevertheless has an actual physical presence in his actions and choices and an impact on his daily life... and that is what takes these things out of the realm of mere plot device and into the realm of a specific weakness. The only reason to have it just as a plot device is if someone didnt particularly want to roelplay it or implement some mechanic to handle it or have it impact directly on play except when the GM remembers to say oh yeah.. and while your in the bar you get a terrible craving for a drink.. it deserves more attention than that in my book. Its more than a story tool, dependencies the likes of Alcoholism and other substance absue, habitual gambling etc.. are life defining and life changing and that is why i include them as weaknesses.

Overall, the real problem I have with a long list of weaknesses is that you then get some players who want points for all of them on the one hand, and other players who will undergo the effects of the weakness without getting the points on the other. For me, the list in the book is pretty much fine since it makes it clear that not every super has weaknesses that grant points. Offering weakness points for many of the standard comic book conventions - like having an arch-nemesis, or having some government agency after you - implies that every hero has one weakness, or often several. This is a change (albeit not a huge one) in the way M&M seems to have done things.

Well any GM has to apply a little bit of common sense, someone wanting a few points for each doesn't have a weakness (other than an ability to make a decision probably ), for myself my players are limited to no more than two weaknesses and if taken must be played as such.

If the few in the book is fine for you then thats cool really , you dont need to use any of the ones I posted here, but by the same token if that was your choice i'd avoid the other M&M books like Croooks, the Annual etc.. that expand upon the list you like.

If folks want to use them they will, if they dont they won't its all good

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Not really as I mention above there is a big difference between having people who want tog et thier own back because you beat them or foiled their plan and those whose entire reason for getting up in the morning is to cause you more misery... its the difference between having villains you beat as part of your daily life to the villains who could care less about anything BUT you specifically.

This keeps being repeated but everytime i read it i keep seeing "the villain after you has a weakness, his obsession with you." giving the guy who is after you a weakness, this level of irrational obsession, doesn't seem like its worth points for YOU. After all, a more rational adversary, able to weigh the benefits of "revenge now" vs "success now" seems more dangerous overall.

But thats just me.

The old plot device rational holds no water with me im afraid :d technically everything is a plot device so why have rules for anything. Heck the adventures we run are plot devices..they get the group from point A to point B in a story.., the heroes themselves are a plot device for without it no story could unfold and so on and so forth... plot device as a rationale for not detailing things in that way is a lazy GM's get out of jail free card and not one I use.

I explained the rationale for this one in previous posts its fairly straightforward and because players prefer it that way. Not every player wants to save thier girlfriend from being dropped off the golden gate bridge every other adventure, or save Aunt May from the predations of venom constantly.. not every player wants that kind of complication. Hence as a weakness it allows only those who wish to open themselves up for such liabilities to have to deal with them.

Well, not everything is a plot device, many things are objects or characters.

What I liked about MnM, using HERo as a contrast, was that MnM took a lot of the nonsense that boil down to "story" and left it to "story" and not a part of character points and accounting.

Whether you "bought" friends or just wrote them down, the odds are they will from time to time be involved. Why? because it makes for a better story if the stakes are personal.

Whether you "bought" a villain whi is interested in you or not, its likely as not going to occur. Why? Because its a better story if the bad guy behind the arc is not some new guy no one knows but a tie in to a previous adventure... again... its personal to you and not just your cape running up against another cape.

In HERO, these are part of the accounting and as such their appearance, their powers, their scope etc were all "by the book" ran by the prefabbed, prefiged numbers. As such, IMX, the pcs tended to be similar... all having as much psyche lim as possible then hunted then etc. Heck, look over the hero builds, from either local PCs or from the published ones. How many names were mentioned in backgrounds that did not appear on the sheet as points?

But you know what happens? The guy who did not take hunted, fights a new villain, one he has to try and figure out what he does. The guy who tooks hunted, fights an old villain, who he know but who also knows him. The "hunted" did not make the hero have to fight more guys than the other hero... it simply flavored the fight a little differently. Sure, on occasion the villain's specialized knowledge would make for a interesting scenario, but just as often the new villain's surprises would too.

MnM basically leaves the story elements to be story elements and not about points. Players will write in 'and this guy is after me" and "i have this sister who" and all that because they want to. If they don't want to, they dont get urged to in order to remain competitive.

Now, IMX, i got better, more richly detailed, more consistent and built for better stories characters when this whole "backstory" was not a part of "accounting, about the points and an excuse for MO' POWER!" When it was all "just for fun" and did not play a role in the "MO'POWER", i got longer writeups with more details and moreover the details were things the players wanted to explore, not things they tacked on for more points to spend. (I saw the exact same people buiuld hero characters many times so i have a pretty good basis for comparison.)

YMMV but i wont again make backstory elements a part of the MO'POWER accounting in any game under any system. It takes the most creative aspects of character design ansd grinds it under the heel of accounting.

Never again.

again big difference between people you upset or interfer with compared to those whose specific aggend is to bring you specifically down.

Like i said, either i will fight an old foe in an interesting scenario or a new foe in an interesting scenario.

I think Mental Disorder is a bit more rewarding of its own detail than a Quirk... im sure anyone with a mental disorder would be vastly amused of the notion of their problem being referred to as a mere quirk A lisp or nervous twitch is a quick... a disorder is substantially more

I would not ever read the MNM quirk as being a lisp or a nervous twitch, at least, not once i took a moment to read the description instead of just stopping at the title.

Then again, for my second MnM game, i have moved all weaknesses and flaws off the accounting system altogether. No more "loan shark" points up front. Instead, they all pay back in bonus hero points whenever they actually hurt you in play. With this system, i don't have to worry about foresight guessing how bad a flaw will be or even making sure its "big enough". The player can define a weakness or flaw however he likes, and WHEN it comes up and bites him, however often that will be for however serious that is, he will get "paid back" with bonus HERo points.

So if one guy wants to play a character who has half resistance to fire while another has no resistance to silver, I do not need to fret over how much those are worth in comparison. After they occur, after i see "what they did" then i give hero points at session end in payback.

Hindsight, much more accurate than foresight.

 

[Neo]

This keeps being repeated but everytime i read it i keep seeing "the villain after you has a weakness, his obsession with you." giving the guy who is after you a weakness, this level of irrational obsession, doesn't seem like its worth points for YOU. After all, a more rational adversary, able to weigh the benefits of "revenge now" vs "success now" seems more dangerous overall.

Its worth points to YOU because its a weakness its something extra you need to worry about, something that is a specific risk to YOU.

Heroes inevitably cross the paths of villains all the time, but almost always ONLY when the hero begins to interfere with a villains plans, otherwise they would pay no attention to each other at all. And that is the FUNDAMENTAL difference, as an Arch Nemesis doesn't have that disinterest he's constantly on your trail, trying to hurt you or those you love, he isn't interested in grandiose plans and schemes anymore, all he wants is to make your life hell until he can blink it out entirely. the two things are HUGELY different in nature.

Oh and just so were clear this thread is related to M&M and not HERO comparisons between the two games are largely irrelvant as one isnt the other regardless of any cosmetic similarities here and there between the two. I don't mean that harshly I really don't but comparing the two is completely irrelevant as they are at the end of the day not the same thing at all.

I would not ever read the MNM quirk as being a lisp or a nervous twitch, at least, not once i took a moment to read the description instead of just stopping at the title.

Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point I was making with regards towhat I said about Quirks.. :\

And your sarcastic closing sentence does you no credit lets keep discussion pleasant shall we and avoid any snide comments.

 

[DMScott]

Not really as I mention above there is a big difference between having people who want tog et thier own back because you beat them or foiled their plan and those whose entire reason for getting up in the morning is to cause you more misery...

And to repeat, any hero worthy of the name is going to eventually draw such an arch-nemesis just by acting like a hero. The vast majority of 4-colour type comic book heroes have at least one, that implies it's a convention of the genre. So why then would anybody NOT take this "weakness"? It's going to happen to them anyway, might as well get points for it.

The old plot device rational holds no water with me im afraid :d technically everything is a plot device so why have rules for anything.

Some story elements are well suited to driving the plot. All the ones I listed are effects that in the comics (a) are rarely presented consistently even when applied to the same character, and (b) tend to interfere with a hero's life at dramatic moments, not just at random times. As such, their timing IMHO works better if it's under GM control. If you find you prefer to roll on random tables for these and other aspects of character lives, then fair enough.

I explained the rationale for this one in previous posts its fairly straightforward and because players prefer it that way.

Fair enough. You might want to change the name to something more appropriate then, like "Interfering Dependent", just to ensure that players don't think the only way to have a family or social life is to make them a weakness.

again big difference between people you upset or interfer with compared to those whose specific aggend is to bring you specifically down.

The description of your "Hunted" disadvantage does not in fact make this distinction. It just says you've made an enemy and they're responding. As with arch-nemesis, I can't imagine any hero PC who won't be in this situation a few sessions into the campaign. So again, we've got a weakness that you might as well take, because it's about 99% likely you're going to play as if you've got it.

that would be a save and only necessary when applicable, hardly clunky

Everybody who knows of the weakness - or even suspects it, once it's introduced into the campaign - will be asking to make disbelief saves every time they interact with the character. It doesn't get a lot clunkier than that.

I think Mental Disorder is a bit more rewarding of its own detail than a Quirk... im sure anyone with a mental disorder would be vastly amused of the notion of their problem being referred to as a mere quirk A lisp or nervous twitch is a quick... a disorder is substantially more

So you object to the term used in the rulebook and made up a new weakness just because of that? The Quirk weakness is clearly a lot more than a lisp or nervous twitch - it includes irrational hatred, irrational fear, irrational attraction, etc.

Dependencies are not restricted purely to substance abuse..

Yes, I know. As I said, for a weakness I'd restrict them to super-dependencies of various types, IE those that directly impact on a character's powers. Merely being a gambler, for example, is not really a weakness (unless it rises to the level of making the character irrational like Two-Face's coin, in which case it's covered by Quirk). The super-dependent type of weakness, where you have to do something to maintain your powers, has clearly been missing from M&M. For other types, refer back to plot devices - reducing them to a die roll is a good crutch for a dice-dependent GM, I guess, but not really satisfying IMHO.

Well any GM has to apply a little bit of common sense, someone wanting a few points for each doesn't have a weakness (other than an ability to make a decision probably ),

Or they just don't want to get screwed into being assigned a weakness without getting the points for it, which is pretty much inevitable under your system.

for myself my players are limited to no more than two weaknesses and if taken must be played as such.

I can't off-hand think of a Marvel or DC character that doesn't have at least three of your weaknesses, which means that if you're running a game vaguely like mainstream comic books you're basically giving PCs an extra 20 points. Which is fine really, but I think it'd be more efficient to just say "OK, you all get an extra 20 points" rather than adding a big list of pseudo-weaknesses.

 

[Neo]

And to repeat, any hero worthy of the name is going to eventually draw such an arch-nemesis just by acting like a hero. The vast majority of 4-colour type comic book heroes have at least one, that implies it's a convention of the genre. So why then would anybody NOT take this "weakness"? It's going to happen to them anyway, might as well get points for it.

I disagree its not a given that everyone will inevitably draw a villain thats classifies as an arch nemesis, and is dedicated to bringing them down and even when such happens in a roleplay context such individuals are invariably aimed at the group as opposed to one individual in that group. Whereas the weakness itself is specifically aimed at an individual character.

Some story elements are well suited to driving the plot. All the ones I listed are effects that in the comics (a) are rarely presented consistently even when applied to the same character, and (b) tend to interfere with a hero's life at dramatic moments, not just at random times. As such, their timing IMHO works better if it's under GM control. If you find you prefer to roll on random tables for these and other aspects of character lives, then fair enough.

some are suite yes, but just as many are 50/50 story/mechanics related both, so rolls inevitably pop up at some point. the realm of the purely narrative sessions is predominantly that of PBEM'ers only.

Fair enough. You might want to change the name to something more appropriate then, like "Interfering Dependent", just to ensure that players don't think the only way to have a family or social life is to make them a weakness.

interfering doesn't really describe them, they are a risk and possible liability and an element the character has to take an active interest in supporting and caring for... the weakness doesnt really represent nagging in laws...although LOL

The description of your "Hunted" disadvantage does not in fact make this distinction. It just says you've made an enemy and they're responding. As with arch-nemesis, I can't imagine any hero PC who won't be in this situation a few sessions into the campaign. So again, we've got a weakness that you might as well take, because it's about 99% likely you're going to play as if you've got it.

Hunted is like the organisational equivelant of Arch Nemesis except as I say it is an organisation or group dedicated to the characters downfall as opposed to a single super powered villain.
I'm sorry you cant imagine a hero PC who wont be in this situation a few session into a campaign as I certainly can, but I wouldn't make such broad assumption about their inaplicability in other peoples games simply because you cannot envision something.

Everybody who knows of the weakness - or even suspects it, once it's introduced into the campaign - will be asking to make disbelief saves every time they interact with the character. It doesn't get a lot clunkier than that.[/quote[

and this is different from them doing the same once they know the person in question is vulnerable to silver or susceptible to chanel no.5 how?

So you object to the term used in the rulebook and made up a new weakness just because of that? The Quirk weakness is clearly a lot more than a lisp or nervous twitch - it includes irrational hatred, irrational fear, irrational attraction, etc.

Have you actually looked at the other books? (not meant sarcastically btw) if not check out crooks, you'll see a number of specific quirks detailed out as individual weaknesses there each working and being implemented in a different way... that is simply what I did with mental disorder. quirk is actually given in the main book as a catchall description for a bunch of things, but as they show you that doesnt mean they all work the same just because they are categorised as quirks. but as I was trying to point out I didn't list it Quirk - Mental Disroder because quirks are by the very meaning of the word relatively minor things and a mental disorder is more than a quirk per se.

For other types, refer back to plot devices - reducing them to a die roll is a good crutch for a dice-dependent GM, I guess, but not really satisfying IMHO.

Ouch that stings! got a band aid

Or they just don't want to get screwed into being assigned a weakness without getting the points for it, which is pretty much inevitable under your system.

The actual pay off of weaknesses is that you get points for them by taking something that makes your character vulnerable in some fashion. As for the system it isn't mine its Green Ronins, I didn't make the system I merely added a bunch of additions to it that are of the same nature and work in similar ways to the ones they provide. If the options dont work for you, thats fine they aren't required to...move along and this thread need trouble you no more

I can't off-hand think of a Marvel or DC character that doesn't have at least three of your weaknesses, which means that if you're running a game vaguely like mainstream comic books you're basically giving PCs an extra 20 points. Which is fine really, but I think it'd be more efficient to just say "OK, you all get an extra 20 points" rather than adding a big list of pseudo-weaknesses.

really? and because of that what? by restricting my group to only two weaknesses each im giving them points for nothing? <sigh>... its a pity you cannot see a weakness for what it is. Do you not think the likes of say Spiderman pay for thier weaknesses? having venom pursue him endlessly, beat on him endlessly, having green goblin harass and harm his family, and send wave after wave of continual hatred, negativitiy and pain Parkers way?? and you don't consider those weaknesses... gee tough place your universe!! I think I'll stay here

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Its worth points to YOU because its a weakness its something extra you need to worry about, something that is a specific risk to YOU.

Heroes inevitably cross the paths of villains all the time, but almost always ONLY when the hero begins to interfere with a villains plans, otherwise they would pay no attention to each other at all. And that is the FUNDAMENTAL difference, as an Arch Nemesis doesn't have that disinterest he's constantly on your trail, trying to hurt you or those you love, he isn't interested in grandiose plans and schemes anymore, all he wants is to make your life hell until he can blink it out entirely. the two things are HUGELY different in nature.

Ok but if I dont have an arch nemesis, then i spend a game session sitting at home unmolested playing with the kids?

Again, the difference between "in this scenario i fight a new villain" and "in this scenario i fight an old nemesis" is a matter mostly of flavor and style and whether its a personal thing or a new riddle to figure out.

IMX that is not worth points. heck, if anything, my players prefer it to have the encounters be more personal, more of a tie in than a new thing or a "random menace".

Oh and just so were clear this thread is related to M&M and not HERO comparisons between the two games are largely irrelvant as one isnt the other regardless of any cosmetic similarities here and there between the two. I don't mean that harshly I really don't but comparing the two is completely irrelevant as they are at the end of the day not the same thing at all.

The relevence i see is quite simple. I have played hero a bit and it does make these sorts of things a part of the accounting, like you are suggesting MnM would. MNM doesn't currently

So, and i may be off base here, but experience with games which ALREADY do what you are suggesting seems relevent.

If its not to you, thats cool, but past experience to me seems a reasonable thing to consider.

Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point I was making with regards towhat I said about Quirks.. :\

Ok, if you say so.

And your sarcastic closing sentence does you no credit lets keep discussion pleasant shall we and avoid any snide comments.

Huh? This wasn't sarcastic!

"Hindsight, much more accurate than foresight."

Anyway, of course you don't have to convince me nor do i have to convince you. You posted them here, i presume, yo get people's opinions.

you now have mine.

enjoy.

and, after you have put them in play and seen a number of games with them, how about popping back in to let us know your experiences? I myself find experience (hindsight) to be more helpful than expectation (foresight.)

thanks.

 

[Neo]

Huh? This wasn't sarcastic!

"Hindsight, much more accurate than foresight."

The closing statement of the quote box above where I responded, not the closing statement of your entire response.

Regardless it seems we have differing opinions on some of the weaknesses, which is fine, there seemes little point in me replying to your above reply again simply in order to go over the same ground once more as we are already going in circles and restating the same points. We'll just have to live with having differing views.

 

[takyris]

Lump me in with the others. Most of these are either already handled via roleplaying (and would draw cries of munchkinism if people in my group tried to take them), are already handled via weakness or susceptible, or are the kinds of weaknesses that make such large-scale character changes possible that they should be plot devices, not weaknesses. (Your "Data" weakness, for example. Changes that big shouldn't be possible unless the GM and player talk about it beforehand and give it the okay -- in which case it's not a weakness, it's a choice for character change. Or, in other words, when Wolverine got his admantium ripped out by Magneto, that wasn't just Wolvie's weakness getting worked -- that was a full-scale plot device change, with Wolvie's player talking with the GM and okaying the change. "Sure, if he hits me here and uses his magnetism power to damage me internally, why not have him rip them out. I'll respend the points elsewhere." Unless, of course, the player deliberately wants his character to get changed all the time -- in which case he should just make that part of his roleplaying concept or Flaw some of his powers to random utility instead of trying to draw a weakness for it.)

Wouldn't use 'em.

 

[malladin]

I like the Spycraft method of such things, though. The character PAYS skill points to get the penalties, and is paid off eventually with more xp than normal.

Yes this is a good method, first Intorduced with 7th Sea. We have a similar system in Martial Avengers which handles this, but is designed with a bit more versatility than the Spycraft system.

Ben