Basic Action Super Heroes!

I was reading through the way for EARNING Hero Points & Setbacks again... My question is:

As a Narrator, how do YOU suggest you determine when a player character deserves to have "earned" a Setback point?

Earning/determining Hero Points is a little easier... this is a happy thing, they've done a good job, been a hero, helped someone/thing. Easy.

However...
In my experience, some players will have a BIG difference in their UNDERSTANDING or general belief in what a "negative" action is. An action that "deserves" the EARNING of a Setback point.


I completely understand that BEING the Narrator is the ultimate in having "game master fiat" and end decision making... I've just played with several people who's "moral compass" is significantly different than mine.
Other than just telling them... "Too bad" - what do you suggest a BASH! Narrator do for "Earning Setbacks"?

Would it be best to make a list of actions?
Would it be best or okay to just NOT TELL the players when they receive Setbacks?


And lastly... How do you determine how many Hero Points or Setback Points that any single action should get? Can you "earn" more than one at a time, or is each action only worth one?



thanks for the advice
-kev-

I would say "you'll end up taking setbacks if you do that" when they say they'll do something bad.

kevperrine wrote:As a Narrator, how do YOU suggest you determine when a player character deserves to have "earned" a Setback point?
<snip>
I've just played with several people who's "moral compass" is significantly different than mine.

Yeah, I see the issue there. So far, I haven't been tempted to hand out any setbacks. Ok, maybe jokingly once when the player character was holding a bad guy minion and used him as improvised cover... But generally my players have been pretty heroic types, so it hasn't come up.

I'm not a big fan of using game-mechanics for carrot-and-the-stick behavior management. I never made much use of it in Star Wars, where the setting itself included the concept, so I probably won't make much use of it in a supers game either. If your players are doing "questionable" actions, then there can be in-game consequences (from NPC peer pressure to media nightmares to legal action), but I'm not sure I see a need for out-of-character mechanics for that. So one option would be to just ignore that rule.

Another alternative would be to bring in an optional element from the Iron Age Settings info (page 86). It gives rules for Anti-Heroes, and each character gets to choose whether they are Heroes or Anti-Heroes. If they choose Heroes, then they are agreeing to abide by your decisions on what is non-heroic behavior and deserves setbacks (a list of examples would help there). If their moral compass is sufficiently different and they disagree with your list, they can choose to declare themselves anti-heroes. They can then behave the way they feel appropriate without you giving setbacks, but there is a cost - there's a "tax" on their hero points.

If neither of those options sound good, then I guess I'd say make a list of examples (preferably with player input, as part of a discussion about this), and then agree that in this campaign these are the guidelines for appropriate behavior (and that list could vary from campaign to campaign, or even story arc to story arc, depending on tone). If you cannot reach a consensus even for a specific campaign (as opposed to more generally or in real life), then it sounds like the type of game you want to run and the type of game they want to play isn't a match.

And lastly... How do you determine how many Hero Points or Setback Points that any single action should get? Can you "earn" more than one at a time, or is each action only worth one?

I'm still trying to find my own balance on this. I do give more than one, typically 1 for a "heroic" action, 2 for a "wow, that was really heroic action!" and 3 or more for "oh my gosh, I can't believe you could ever do that!"