PDA

View Full Version : Player Help Negating a Required Flaw



Kesnit
2014-07-18, 05:52 AM
I've been playing in a game (the system is not important) with a long-standing group of my friends. The GM required that we all pick an RP drawback as part of character development. I am playing a sociopath (with a specific exemption for the party, who are his lifelong friends). One of our casters is a megalomaniac and a bit of a psychopath. Our tank is a xenophobe (in a world with lots of non-human races). I can't remember what the 4th player took, but know it is reasonable.

A few months after the game started, the GM's girlfriend rejoined the group. (She has been playing with the group for years, but dropped out because she had a heavy class load last semester.) She took the flaw fear of water. This is reasonable, since a lot of travel is by river and lake. The first time the party had to travel, she did a good job RP-ing her phobia. A few game sessions ago, however, the party had to travel again. She was RP-ing her fear of getting on the boat, when someone (can't remember who) joked she should get a flying horse. (Until this point, flying horses were not a thing in this world.) She thought it was a great idea and begged for the horse. The GM said she could have it, but would have to pay for it as a cohort from her XP (and the XP cost would be high) and it would NOT be useable in combat. The rest of the party got on the boat, she got on her horse, and we started off for the next city.

The next game session, we arrived at our destination. The party is walking through the city, with her leading the flying horse (now walking) with a blanket over its back to hide the wings. Eventually, combat breaks out. She starts freaking out about the horse (which she has not spent the XP for yet) and asks if she can use it to fly around the combat. (She's a battlefield control caster.) The GM told her no, repeatedly because she kept asking.


By this point, I am a bit annoyed, but I'm not sure if I'm just too invested to be objective about this situation. So I am putting it out for other people...

1) Would you be annoyed if another player found a way to get around a GM-required flaw, even if the cost is high?
2) Would you be annoyed if the GM does eventually allow the flying horse to be useable in combat (even if the cost is REALLY high)?

Cowardly Griffo
2014-07-18, 06:31 AM
Well, first off you should be talking to your table about this, not to us. You're clearly harboring some resentment about this, and it's taking away from your fun–and when one player isn't having fun, that tends to spread.

Seriously. Talk to the GM, and involve the player with the flying horse with that discussion. Give her some credit; most people are reasonable enough to give up on a minor thing like an imaginary flying horse when it's causing problems with a real-life person in their social circle.

That said, if you really want some advice? Bearing in mind that the opinion of someone outside your table is completely irrelevant to your situation?

A. If she can overcome the flaw with no troubles now, then suggest that she needs a new one. Everyone else's flaws are things that actually come up (presumably); sure, you take measures to overcome your shortcomings, everybody does that. But it sounds like at this point she doesn't have a flying horse to overcome her fear of water; she has a flying horse because she wants a flying horse.

B. Don't get mad if the GM eventually rules that the horse can be used in combat. It's a staggeringly arbitrary limitation, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to see that, and arbitrary limitations aren't fun for anyone. This goes double if you take the advice in A, since it stops being a bandaid and starts being a power-set at that point.

I'm not going to tell you whether I would be annoyed or not. Again, my opinion is not relevant, and justifying or negating the opinion you already have doesn't seem like it would help your feelings on the matter.

endoperez
2014-07-18, 06:49 AM
What is the purpose of these flaws?

IMO, it is to juice up the game, and provide a bit of roleplaying flavour, and have something that the characters can discuss with each other/taunt each other with.

Having a flying horse can introduce all of those problems as well. She will pay for it, she still has the water phobia, and she won't be able to use the horse in combat.

The only thing that has to be laid down are the rules that govern the horse - what is it for, what is it not for, and if she wants to change it how will she earn it.

Kesnit
2014-07-18, 06:57 AM
Well, first off you should be talking to your table about this, not to us. You're clearly harboring some resentment about this, and it's taking away from your fun–and when one player isn't having fun, that tends to spread.

I asked the question here to find out if my opinion is really off-base. If the general consensus is "it's no big deal," then I'll just suck it up and deal with it. :smallsmile:


B. Don't get mad if the GM eventually rules that the horse can be used in combat. It's a staggeringly arbitrary limitation, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to see that, and arbitrary limitations aren't fun for anyone.

My main issue with it is that no one else has access to flight in any way. The spells used by the 2 casters are based on D&D 3.5 spells and spell levels have to be bought. The megalomaniac just got the ability to cast 2nd level spells. The BFC caster (the one with the horse) is not even close to having the XP to upgrade to 2nd level spells. Fly in 3.5 is 3rd level, which means no one will come close to being able to cast it for a long while. (It took the 1 caster over 6 months of playing, hording her XP and spending almost none, to get to be able to cast 2nd level. It will take more XP to get to 3rd level than it took to get to 2nd, and the GM has said he's reducing the amount of XP he's giving out. She's likely looking at close to a year.)


What is the purpose of these flaws?

The GM gave us extra starting XP to account for taking the flaws. He also wanted us to use them for RP (which we do).


she still has the water phobia,

Except the flying horse completely negates her negative.


The only thing that has to be laid down are the rules that govern the horse - what is it for, what is it not for, and if she wants to change it how will she earn it.

I am hoping the GM (who is statting out the horse) does stick to his guns and says the horse will run from all combat. I'm just afraid he won't.

Kalmageddon
2014-07-18, 07:47 AM
This smells of inexperienced or unassertive GM to me.
Giving a player a powerful toy to play with only to then set arbitrary and often illogical limits to it is not something I would recommend. Either the character now has a flying horse and can use it in combat (possibily with penalities associated with a mout not trained for war, if applicable by the system) or she doesn't have a flying horse.
The fact that such a powerful tool, that gives such an obvious tactical advantage is supposed to disappear whenever you enter "combat" is ridicolous.

If indeed having a player capable of at-will flight is so OP and out of reach for everyone else in the party then the GM should just admit his mistake and take away the flying horse. It's better than spending the rest of the campaign moderating the issues that will come out of its presence.

Airk
2014-07-18, 12:11 PM
I don't think this "completely eliminates" the flaw any more than your sociopath going on a dungeon adventure where "kill it with fire" is the correct response to all encounters.

That said, it's certainly possible this thing will disrupt the game, but not because it negates a dopey disadvantage, but because it's a crazy powerful ability, fullstop.

Flashy
2014-07-18, 06:25 PM
This smells of inexperienced or unassertive GM to me.
Giving a player a powerful toy to play with only to then set arbitrary and often illogical limits to it is not something I would recommend. Either the character now has a flying horse and can use it in combat (possibily with penalities associated with a mout not trained for war, if applicable by the system) or she doesn't have a flying horse.
The fact that such a powerful tool, that gives such an obvious tactical advantage is supposed to disappear whenever you enter "combat" is ridicolous.

The "You have to choose a random vaguely negative personality quirk for no particular reason" thing smacks of inexperienced GMing to me as a whole. It's the worst kind of RP for RP's sake, and it usually adds tremendously little to character or world investment.

icefractal
2014-07-18, 11:37 PM
I don't think that "getting around" the flaw is really a big problem here. There's still a lot of situations where it would be a hindrance - flooding rooms, a fight that occurred while you were crossing water, magic fountains that granted blessings, etc.

Besides, any flaw is going to have some situations you can avoid it. For example:
Sociopath - Being in an enemy area, or not staying in any place long enough to get caught.
Megalomania - Actually, is this even necessarily a downside at all? A lot of adventurers seem to act like this anyway.
Xenophobe - Primarily-human areas, areas where the non-humans are already enemies.


Now, on to the "flying horse in combat" thing. It depends a lot on the system. In D&D, this wouldn't be at all unreasonable at level 4-5, and would be downright unremarkable at level 10+. It sounds like flight is a bigger deal in your system - which system is that, anyway?

Kalmageddon
2014-07-19, 04:10 AM
In D&D, this wouldn't be at all unreasonable at level 4-5, and would be downright unremarkable at level 10+. It sounds like flight is a bigger deal in your system - which system is that, anyway?

At-will flight at level 4/5? I don't think that's the norm in D&D.

icefractal
2014-07-19, 04:56 AM
At-will flight at level 4/5? I don't think that's the norm in D&D.It's not always the norm (that's why I put "unexceptional" at 10th+), but it is definitely something you can achieve:

* Alter Self - Not all day, but it can be the entire adventuring day sometimes.
* Winged Races - They exist. Usually have at least +1 LA, but by 4th/5th that's doable.
* Animal Companion - Several ride-able flying ones available by 4th level.
* Wildshape - The whole adventuring day, at least.
* Flying Mounts - several of these are affordable and/or trainable by this level.
* Probably some other methods I'm forgetting.

Kesnit
2014-07-19, 11:20 AM
I don't think that "getting around" the flaw is really a big problem here. There's still a lot of situations where it would be a hindrance - flooding rooms, a fight that occurred while you were crossing water, magic fountains that granted blessings, etc.

I wasn't very clear on her fear. It's only on deep, running water.


Besides, any flaw is going to have some situations you can avoid it. For example:
Sociopath - Being in an enemy area, or not staying in any place long enough to get caught.
Megalomania - Actually, is this even necessarily a downside at all? A lot of adventurers seem to act like this anyway.
Xenophobe - Primarily-human areas, areas where the non-humans are already enemies.

The game is RP-heavy, so the sociopathy and megalomania are actually detriments. But that's a side issue. My problem with the situation is that the flying horse completely removes her detriment. There is never a time when it will come into play, as long as she can get on the horse and fly over the river/lake. (The flooding room would probably trigger her fear, so long as she couldn't call the horse to save her. I strongly doubt the GM would ever throw a fight over water at us, since the PC would either fly on the horse, or be catatonic and be unable to do anything, removing the player from the entire encounter.)


Now, on to the "flying horse in combat" thing. It depends a lot on the system. In D&D, this wouldn't be at all unreasonable at level 4-5, and would be downright unremarkable at level 10+. It sounds like flight is a bigger deal in your system - which system is that, anyway?

HERO, in an alternate world based on Middle Ages Europe, but with several non-human races. (All the PCs had to be human.)

The player in question is the only one with any kind of flight as an option. One of the other players actually asked if he could have a flight-based power a while ago and was told no. (The PC in question is a paladin-type with self-buffing powers - speed and strength increases. He and I have long-range movement powers - he can jump and I can teleport within line of sight - but no sustained flight.)

Airk
2014-07-19, 01:48 PM
The game is RP-heavy, so the sociopathy and megalomania are actually detriments. But that's a side issue. My problem with the situation is that the flying horse completely removes her detriment. There is never a time when it will come into play, as long as she can get on the horse and fly over the river/lake. (The flooding room would probably trigger her fear, so long as she couldn't call the horse to save her. I strongly doubt the GM would ever throw a fight over water at us, since the PC would either fly on the horse, or be catatonic and be unable to do anything, removing the player from the entire encounter.)

See, THIS is the actual problem. It's a TERRIBLE disadvantage. Either it means nothing 'Welp, I'm scared, but I get on the boat (where nothing of note will happen)' or it's crippling. The horse is pretty much just codifying the fact that this disadvantage is never actually going to mean anything. In all honestly, c'mon. A horse is a pretty vulnerable, LARGE thing that it is easy to get seperated from. And it probably can't fly forever, so no skipping ocean voyages either, but again - this disadvantage is awful and not really a useful roleplaying tool.



The player in question is the only one with any kind of flight as an option. One of the other players actually asked if he could have a flight-based power a while ago and was told no. (The PC in question is a paladin-type with self-buffing powers - speed and strength increases. He and I have long-range movement powers - he can jump and I can teleport within line of sight - but no sustained flight.)

Honestly, it sounds to me like you are more upset that she got a cool toy that you guys are forbidden from having. Which is legitimate, but shouldn't be wrapped in "But it eliminates her stupid irrelevant disadvantage!"

Also, yeah, I agree that the arbitrary character flaw thing sounds like a bad idea from the word go.

Sartharina
2014-07-19, 02:03 PM
I prefer Discworld's solution to hydrophobes - their terror makes them fly over water!