The last time I played a pen and paper RPG, the game of choice was Villains and Vigilantes. I happily rolled myself up a new superhero (The Chrome Cricket) who had some wonderful world-saving powers (like armored skin and a sonic attack), but along with the super-powers came a weakness… in my superhero’s case a dependence on a certain medication to survive.

In the old V&V game, a player could drop one of their super-powers to rid themselves of their character’s weakness and I believe that most people who play choose to do that. Weaknesses are a liability and most of us have at least one in real life and would rather not deal with weaknesses in a game which is supposed to be “fun.” In fact it seems like it may be a big taboo to even suggest game elements which might not, on the surface, contribute to immediate and enduring fun. And who in their right mind would confuse a weakness with fun?

I might.

Professor Xavier, wheelchair bound and all, is one of the most powerful X-Men. The otherwise impervious Superman has a weakness to kryptonite. Daredevil is blind. Are these just silly plot devices or critical pieces which define the character?

Some developers would argue that no one would want an adventurer who only had one arm, was afraid of heights, had asthma, or was a clutz, right? But what if that disability was offset by some other superlative talent and players were given the choice of choosing the safe path of no disability, or the mixed bag of good and bad.

Okay, maybe dungeon crawling would be tough for a character with claustrophobia, and maybe no one would want to drag along a haemophilic warrior as the main tank, but I think just the idea of those types of characters existing is intriguing as heck.


 

 

Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

Search