Now that’s ridiculously untrue. Some super-teams wouldn’t kick a member off, certainly, but not every hero team is equally a paragon of noble principles. Look at the Fall of the Prime Wardens story. Those heroes all had reasons to turn against each other, but if only one of them had been guilty of the things that instead they were all guilty of, it’s absolutely possible to believe that the guilty one would be expelled rather than the entire team separating. Likewise, if a character as dangerous to be around as Setback or The Harpy were in a team that wasn’t either the ragtag-misfit group of Night Watch or a paragon of righteousness on the order of the Legacy-led Freedom Five, they might easily given the boot simply because they’re not able to contribute, or they cause more harm than good. In particular I imagine the Freedom Six in the Iron Legacy timeline, and think of someone like Harpy trying to join the team along with Tachyon, and TLT having to say “Look, there’s too much at stake here, we’re all dead if we fail, so we can’t take the chance of including you and possibly having you suffer an episode at a critical moment.”
I think you only read half my sentence there. The Prime Wardens didn’t have any problems with each other not being powerful enough, they had interpersonal conflicts. The rest of your argument is sheer speculation. And it doesn’t have to do with their power level, either, but their unreliability.
Okay, so let’s pretend that Setback does all the things he currently can do, with none of the downsides, but also no additional upside. (I don’t know SCRPG mechanics, so I can only look at his SOTM deck; in terms of that deck, you’re basically taking his Risk power away and not giving him any other power in its place, along with taking away some portion of the Unluck mechanics, I’m not quite sure how you’d do it.) When everyone else is firing on all cylinders, and you’re just half as useful as everyone else, but your presence is still increasing the value of H (or whatever the equivalent in SCRPG is, something akin to the Challenge Rating system in D&D), then it’s absolutely a legitimate cost-benefit analysis to just say, “Sorry kid, you’re not worth it to us.”
Now that’s going into deck mechanics.
Story-wise, if you took away Setback’s luck powers, he’s still super strong and tough—on par with Legacy. He’d also finally be in a position to learn and improve his skills; he’s expressed interest in doing that (Mr. Fixer has tried to teach him martial arts) but his bad luck always gets in the way.
So yeah, lots of superhero teams would be plenty happy to have him on board.
According to C&A, Setback is about half as strong and tough as Legacy, plus he can’t fly and doesn’t have keen vision and doesn’t have a supernatural danger sense (that part’s actually pretty damn important; one thing that Cracked.com once pointed out is that the thing which really makes a superhero possible is the power to do everything right, that the main reason why vigilantism is illegal in real life is that a person who thinks they know what should be done about a situation is often wrong, and makes things worse through their incompetent intervention). So while a lower-power team might be okay with his presence, a group on the level of the Prime Wardens would not want him around, since his weakness would make him a liability and they’d have to hamper their own efforts in order to protect him and carry his share of the weight. Most likely, they wouldn’t want him to join at all, but if he tricked them into letting him join, and then his uselessness became obvious, he absolutely might be kicked out.
So, here’s Professor Zed (who by rights ought to be an Academic but we’ll let that go for now).
Part of what’s going on here is that the Guided method leaves one with some odd choices at times if one already has a concept in mind. (Professor Zed would make a lousy close combatant, I’m thinking, Dice…)
I can sort of see the point, here, but on the other hand, the charts offer ways to balance things out. Like, for instance, a d12 in Accident leading into an Energy Manipulator archetype. So, now Professor Zed is an astronomer who got hit by a crazy meteorite and sure, he’s all paraplegic but he’s also bursting with Incredible Cosmic Power!!!
So he’s kinda average to mediocre on the psychic front but he’s pretty badass on the zapping things in the face with solar energy front. Plus, when the rubber hits the road, he heals himself instead of hurting himself. So… does his being a guy who hulks out as he wears down make up for his average to below-average non-combat skillset? I dunno. I’d have to play it to find out.
If I was going “constructed” on this, I’d just skip the whole business of the Energy Manipulator archetype and go straight to Psychic, and instead of a third red ability6 I’d use my retcon to re-assign my d12 to whatever psychic power I felt was the one I wanted to be the strongest; probably Telekinesis because that one would the one I’d imagine using the most in “overcome” actions and/or “boost” actions. And, then I’d be Headlong, LOL.
So, I dunno. I guess it comes down to what a player wants out of her character. If Professor Zed was generating a bunch of twists by solving problem with Telepathy, I’d look for ways to solve them some other way. Cosmic energy manipulation is a pretty vague and open-ended power. I mean, look at Green Lantern. He’s definitely a d12 in that power, LOL. Whether the GM would allow that level of shenanigans is a different question. 
I won’t speak for anyone else, but for me I try to come up with challenges and opponents that work with their abilities to give them interesting opportunities. For example, maybe the criminal underworld is where the information they need can be found. (Of course, you don’t want required information to only be available via one method, but some useful information might only be available through that channel.)
Also we can create overcomes that provide built-in bonuses (or penalties 
) to complete them. For example, if there are three groups of civilians who each have to be escorted out, maybe one of them includes a fan of the hero so that hero gets a +2 to that overcome, where another group includes an anti-vigilante crusader so anyone who tries to work with that group gets a -2 to the overcome. I don’t usually do this, myself, but it is an option that’s available. (I don’t remember when it came up, but it might have been one of the podcast episodes? 
)
See, I’d build SpiderMan starting with an Academic Background, but many people forget how freaking smart he is, and how much of his stuff he did himself. But that proves the flexibility of the GYRO system and SCRPG character creation.
Oh, no, they were definitely bad GMs. Fans of that old Gygax-style GM vs Player dynamic, and would make house rules that had no other purpose than make PCs less effective, or slow progression and growth.
Yeah, it trips me up constantly.
I agree with a “we would need to actually play the character to be certain” but I think there is still some interesting parallels between what you were saying and the concerns about struggling.
Like you said, it was the archetype that ended up switching your character around and defining them with that 1d12 in cosmic power. In fact, your character wanted to be a psychic, but you felt the need to instead focus on Cosmic because that was where your power actually was.
And, when talking about how you’d do it with constructed… you’d use your Red to swap dice and give those big dice to the abilities you wanted when you were picking your power source.
I think that is especially notable when I look over my list of pre-gens I made before Covid. I made ten characters, and with none of them did I end up feeling the need to swap dice at the red stage. In fact, going through the constructed method, I often found them getting their defining powers in the Power Source phase. While with struggling, it seems you are going to get your defining powers in the Archetype stage.
Which raises a question I think. How much harder is it to make a character with the Divided or Modular Archetype if you pick Struggling for your Background? It is really starting to seem like a Struggling character is defined more by their archetype than other characters are, so does this translate into having a harder time with certain archetypes?
Huh, that is a sneaky way of doing it.
But I think that your first answer doesn’t really work. The issue isn’t that they don’t have abilities that are helpful, but that the dice make using those abilities difficult. Putting the information in the Criminal Underworld, where the character might end up rolling 1d4, 1d6, 1d6 (assuming they don’t have an investigative or social power and took one of the 11 personalities that starts you at a d6 [holy crap that is too many]) now just highlights the fact that the character is not able to really use their abilities to help. Now, clearly I gave the absolute worst case scenario. A more reasonable worst case would be that it is 3d6 or their best case of 2d8 and a 1d6, but not matter how you slice it i is clearly harder for this character to use this knowledge compared to if they were say a Criminal where their worst is 2d8 and a d6, and their best is 1d10, 1d8, 1d6. Or Law Enforcement where their worst is 1d8 and 2d6 but their best is 2d10 and 1d6
And I think that is the highlight right there. Assuming all dice cane be used
Strugglings worst case die pool is 3d6 and best case is 2d8 and 1d6
Criminal is worst case 2d8 and 1d6, best case 1d10, 1d8, 1d6
Law Enforcement is worst case 1d8 and 2d6, best cast 2d10 and 1d6
The only other two backgrounds that give a worst case of 3d6 are Interstellar and Created, who both give a 1d12 making their best cases 1d12, 1d10, 1d6.
So, I think this is a noticeable difference in Struggling. Whether or not those dice matter overall, we can talk about but I think it is clear that Strugglings dice pools are quite a bit lower than average.
Now, it could be that is because they get a third quality, but Medical also gets a third quality, with the caveat of limiting their quality choices because they most take medicine. Medical’s worst and best? 1d8 and 2d6 followed by 2d10 and 1d6. Again, quite bit of a difference.
Now, gone a bit highlighting that I think there is a gap, what would I do?
I honestly like the idea of letting a Struggling Character take an additional prinicple. It doesn’t change their dice at all, but gives them an extra time they can say “hey, this is important and I’m going to succeed” which I think fits the idea that they are used to adversity
Oh yeah, I love this system. And I love the character creation of this system. I’m drooling over getting more books and seeing this stuff expand out.
But it is also a first edition and obviously there are going to be one or two rough patches that should be examined and considered.
So to tie things up a little, it seems we are all relatively on the same page in that struggling offers a weaker starting point for dice pools.
What we differ in is how much of a problem that really is - some feeling it’s no biggie because you can work around that, while others feel that the problem is that you have to mitigate in some way (including a GM stretching to balance without frustrating anyone). Depending on the view, Struggling is either on par, or below.
What I’m still missing here is a perspective on how Struggling would in fact bring some, however odd, strength with it to make up for the dice pool. What I’m looking for is a house-rule that would make a struggling character an interesting choice; rather playing to slightly different rules than performing* sub-average at everybody else’s game.
(*in a strictly mechanical, die-rolls way of course!)
Here are some ideas I have been toying with, and I would love to hear your thoughts about it!
(1) Make’em equal!
Bump the dice, at least the second set, to average (10,8,6).
This is basically what FrivYeti suggested in this rebalancing thread.
Certainly most straightforward, but maybe not really doing the idea of a low-resource, low-education character justice?
(2) Loaded with personal history!
Gain an additional Principle of any type.
What I like about this approach is that it gives the struggling character more opportunity to shine (they’ve been through a lot of twisted backstory, and have probably a few more strings attached than someone who steered clear), while keeping with the low dice.
(3) Master of make-do!
There is no job this character hasn’t done at some point (and probably failed). Keep the dice, but whenever they use a Quality they don’t have, default to d6 instead of d4.
Again, keeping with the lower dice but emphasizing the increased versatility. However, against (2) this solution feels a little bland and generic, by not really helping define an interesting character.
(4) - EDITED - Twist chargen rules a little more.
By suggestion of Slickriptide, below: When reaching the Retcon step, do that step twice, each time picking a different effect.
(5) Any other suggestions?
Feng Shui’s ‘everyman hero’ has a unique schtick that whenever you use an improvised weapon (extend that to any tool) you get a +1 on your first action. I like how that makes players think hard about creative solutions. But I’m finding that, while somewhat fitting, hard to translate to SCRPG.
Anything else?
To my mind, the “retcon” ability to re-assign dice or skills or take extra skills IS the solution the game’s designers chose for mitigating weaknesses inherent in some of the origins/archetypes that have smaller or fewer dice than others. I’m really not convinced that anything more is needed.
One of the interesting points that @Chaosmancer made about Struggling is that it led to a different sort of build for a hero. “Bottom up” if you will, compared to “top down”; starting with his weaknesses and then moving to his strengths. I think it’s fair to say that Struggling is something you should maybe steer clear of when doing a lot of random chart rolling, unless you’re adventurous, but it’s perfectly appropriate to a constructed approach where it’s just one facet of an overall character design.
Frankly, if you tried to give Struggling an extra boost, I’d be concerned that the min-maxers would start looking for ways to exploit THAT. I don’t think it needs it, especially if the player in question specifically tailors her character around the things she’s strong at and mainly intends to use the weaknesses as “flavor”. That’s why the only real limit I’d put on it is to advise new players that this is an “advanced” choice that works best when the character is constructed with knowledge of the game.
There’s a point where a characters who’s “struggling” but has all of these extra advantages as a result is no longer actually “struggling”. You’re sort of getting into Champions territory where you’re trying to put a value on flaws and give a subsequent bonus as a reward for taking the flaw. That’s not really what “struggling” is about. Never mind that if you do that for Struggling, then where do you draw the line? What about other source that are marginally better than Struggling but still marginally worse than others? Where do you stop?
IMO, retcon IS the remedy, and it’s all the remedy that’s required. Struggling already gives you three starting qualities where nearly every other origin gives only two. Most Sources have 18 sides to spend. Struggling has 20 sides, which puts it on a par with Dynasty as one of the “best” from a strictly raw numbers standpoint.
Sure, maybe it’s a d6 in that extra quality but for anyone else trying to use a third quality to overcome adversity they’d be using a d4. THAT’s the strength of Struggling. It’s really up to the player and the GM to showcase how that IS a strength.
If you stack all of these other advantages on top of the advantages it already has, your average power gamer is going to start asking himself whether he ought to be “struggling”.
Neat idea, thank you. And elegant, too!
I have edited it into my previous post with the list of ideas.
I did, however interpret it as an additional retcon, based on the premise that I wanted to balance a weaker proposition (and if you have to use up something that every other character can use to further their build, it wouldn’t be much of a balancing factor - but there we’re back round to the start of the discussion… 
)
I would agree that an additional retcon would probably solve a lot of issues or concerns, and would be an elegant solution that addresses the perceived issues without breaking or heavily modding the system. It also feels like how other systems give “stock” humans a bit of an edge compared to various fantastic races (D&D/Pathfinder the extra feats/skills, Savage Worlds the free edge, etc.).
So, if Struggling needs to be rebalanced upwards, doesn’t that imply that Dynasty or the other origins at the other end of the bell curve need to rebalanced downwards?
Is dynasty really that much stronger? Hmm, I guess looking at it it does tend to have their weakest pool as 1d10 and 2d6, while their strongest is 1d10, 1d8, 1d6
I guess it is more that the background has two d10’s when the average is 1d10, 1d8. But the powers giving you 2d8 and a 1d6 feels like a good balance for that.
Just for an example, Upper class is 1d10 and 1d8 followed by 1d10 and 2d8. If we just assume that it is a “balanced” version of Dynasty, then dynasty bumps a quality by 1, in exchange for degrading powers by 2.
I’d also say being a little bit above the curve is less noticeable than being a little bit below it. Especially with how the difference between a 3 or a 4 on an overcome roll is a MASSIVE shift compared to a 7 vs an 8.
Well, my real point was that if you go into the business of “balancing” that the logical extreme is that you have to redesign the whole system. If some sort of mathematical balance is what you want then you probably want a different game system. Like, say, Champions.
The core rulebook flat out states that there are imbalances. It’s part of the game. The quote below is from page 43 of the core rulebook. The italics is added by me for emphasis.
The imbalance is intentional. Trying to redress it by making Struggling more attractive or Dynasty/Interstellar less attractive is missing the point. They’re supposed to feel different from each other. That’s why the “balance” in Struggling is that you get more qualities and more dice sides, so you CAN spend your retcon on adjusting your other skills if you need to. In any case, Struggling is essentially trading depth for breadth. If you don’t want to make that tradeoff, don’t choose Struggling.
I think you undercut your own point by acknowledging that it is a “logical extreme”.
Yes, some imbalance is expected in the system, it is not perfectly mathematically balanced… but that doesn’t mean that we can’t seek a closer balance at all.
And the problem is really highlighted by struggling being a strong story. It is the only background that really covers the poor and downtrodden, the people who have not a single tragic incident, but dozens of minor ones. We want to be able to choose it, but it is just far enough out of balance from the rest that it makes us wonder if we should.
Also, I’ve been reading FrivYeti’s thread and they make a good point about that passage. The passage talks about Legacy fighting beside Wraith, and them being “different power levels”. I’m actually going to throw in all three, Heritage, Wraith and Legacy. Who is… under powered here?
NPC 1: Four powers (1d10, 3d8) Six Qualities (2d10, 4d8)
NPC 2: Four Powers (1d10, 3d8) Five Qualities (3d10, 2d8)
NPC 3: Five Powers (1d10, 3d8, 1d6) Four Qualities (2d10, 2d8)
In fact, there is not a single NPC hero who does not have at least a d10 power and a d10 quality (or higher)
Now, here is FrivYeti’s Struggling character: Six Powers (6d8) Five Qualities (2d8, 3d6).
Edit: And actually, before the “they have six powers” the power list is Lightning Calculator, Awareness, Electricity, Leaping, Swimming, Telekinesis. There is overlap here, specifically in swimming and leaping, that you won’t often need all of these powers. /End Edit
And Struggling is the only background that does not have a 1d10 somewhere in it. And yes, it gives a third quality, but so does Medical even though it is limited to Medicine it still gives that same broadness, because Struggling is either grabbing Banter, Criminal Info, or 1-3 Physical Qualities. While Medical get Medicine and then choose between any mental, finesse, science and technology. All of which are really good.
Again, perfect balance isn’t the goal, but it seems weirdly unbalanced in a way that seems to be against the actual design ethos of the game.