PDA

View Full Version : Fear of the Negatives



Cluedrew
2015-12-12, 09:01 PM
You sometimes I see people post there real life state line. After seeing a few I wondered I what mine looked like and one thing led to another and recently I realized something, the numbers I would need to make my stat line are almost or completely unachievable with point buy (depending on the edition). If you are wondering those numbers are: 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, and it wasn't the 10, 16 and 17 that were giving me trouble.

And then it occurred to me, in all the rules of D&D I don't know a single one that tells you how to play a one handed swordsman. Or a mute wizard (I'd just grab Silent Spell as a feat and only speak in character to people who knew sign-language). Nor does any game I know of have any rules for playing a blind character (unless they have an even more powerful second sight).

Which brings me to the main point. In many stories it is not what the main character is good at that defines them, but what they are bad at and what gives them trouble. In fact having read stories that are defined by what the main character is good at I'm going to say most good stories spend time on the hero's weaknesses. Yet the role-playing community at large, myself included, seems to have an aversion to so much as giving a below average stat to their characters.

I suppose part of it comes from the "power fantasy" side of role playing, which can go pretty badly some times if you have been following the worst player threads. But in a way I think it is more deeply ingrained than that. In fact I occasionally see threads that boil down to: "Hi, I want to do this non-optimal thing to try and make a different and hopefully more interesting character, how should I do that?" "Don't even think about it. You should be ashamed of yourself for considering it. It would be a black mark on your group and the gaming community as a whole if you ever did that." And it is kind of sad in a way. Now I'm sure there are games where cranking every +1 out of your character you can is important, but there are many where it is not.

Any no this is not role vs. roll. This is, if I want to role- or roll-play being bad at something, is that so wrong?

Related Questions:
Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?
Do you know of any systems that represent disability or below average ability characters well?
Have any related thoughts to share?

endur
2015-12-12, 10:05 PM
It is not wrong to have a character who is not great at something.

The standard D&D point buy system assumes everyone is pretty good (8 or higher, unless you have a racial penalty).

They really should have a sliding scale similar to above 13, i.e. 6 is 1 point less than 8, 3 is 2 points less than 8, or something like that, where you can go lower, but don't get as much power gaming benefit for it, so power gamers won't do it, but role players can do it and still get something.

Systems like champions handle flaws and handicaps pretty well.

Âmesang
2015-12-12, 11:59 PM
I recall Noah Antwiler's comments on the subject in his Counter Monkey episode, "3d6 in Order" — "Some of you will dump stat down to an 8… and those people are considered fools!"

Now, to be fair, my favorite and longest lasting character was not generated 3d6 in order. :smalltongue: Though her dad might be, if I ever get a chance to play 1st or 5th Edition WORLD OF GREYHAWK®. Originally… actually, I forgot how I originally generated her stats. I think it was 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll 1's? Maybe? Either way she had, from Str to Cha, 12-17-16-17-15-18.

After awhile I started growing distasteful regarding those stats; almost as if I had somehow cheated. So, one day, I decided to rebuild her stats using (admittedly) one of Pathfinder's stat-buy systems, producing a much more reasonable 7-15-13-16-9-18. This produced a human sorceress who was as strong and healthy as a wealthy, noble-born person could be expected to be, without being anything close to an Olympic-level weight lifter (as a bad joke I gave her 13 in Con to represent her, ahem, voluptuous figure). She was very agile and graceful, the type who'd have balanced books on her head, while also undoubtedly charismatic with a brilliant mind… yet lacking in any kind of keen awareness to the world around her, instead being horrifically vain, conceited, selfish, self-centered, proud, perhaps with delusions of grandeur.

Now it some ways this works out very well. I consider myself to be far more eloquent as a typist than as an actual speaker, but in either case I often joke that, as smart as I consider myself to be I lack wisdom; so if I fail to do something correct that might seem obvious, or if I miss an important detail or two in an otherwise "perfect" plan, I guess I can chalk that up to bad wisdom for the both of us, huh? (In comparison another favorite character of mine is a human ranger with a 7 Cha, so I can take all of my own quiet, almost timid-like personality quirks and use it towards her, making her the strong, silent type — one who hangs back [with bow in hand] and only speaks when having something important… or sarcastic… to say, otherwise being rather gruff and feeling almost uncomfortable talking despite possessing a high Wisdom and above-average Intelligence. After all, the plants of the animals of the wilderness rarely have any reason to talk — why should she?)

…I kind of lost my train of thought just now.

Well, anyway, I like having "low" ability scores at times because it can make for some interesting roleplaying. Having a low Str for a sorceress isn't all that big of a deal — Hell, it's more or less expected, especially after becoming an archmage with Arcane Reach — but having a low Wisdom, lower than her quasit familiar (even after having his own decreased due to a certain effect), yet still possessing an Iron Will because of class combination could make things fun. She's focused, ambitious, doesn't easily back down, has a strong spirit but is so lost in her own, little world that she thinks everything she does is right or best and may act without fully realizing the consequences of her actions. Plus it's a kind of silly cliché to have the big baddie have a subordinate that "knows better," no? Makes me think I should try and channel a little bit of MCU Tony Stark/Jarvis into her and her familiar, respectively.

Of course I have to keep in mind that her Wisdom is only a 9 — slightly below average, so I shouldn't make her too foolish. Just… a little foolish. :smallsmile:

RadioDask
2015-12-13, 12:35 AM
This is literally the reason I don't play much DnD. And usually when I do I modify it to include a disadvantages mechanic of sorts.

The absolute best IMO for disadvantaged characters would be Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel, disadvantages not only are crippling, they cost points in character creation. This is because you can earn "Artha" (karma, luck, mystical storytelling energies, whatever) by playing out those disadvantages in an intriguing and plot changing way. This encourages actively to play flawed characters; not only are they more fun, but there are a few tangible system mechanics to reward it behind the scenes. Artha can do things like cause dice to explode, add more dice, shrug off pain, avoid death through a complication, and more. This however, does not reduce the penalties the disadvantages cause; blind characters are still blind and cannot shoot, read, or do just about anything sight related for the life of them; crippled characters will easily be chased down and will lag behind in travel.

Most other systems seem to use disadvantages as a way to earn more character creation points or a similar effect. This encourages players to basically min max, taking disadvantages in what they don't plan on doing much of or things they don't care about to make unrealistic ultra-specialist characters.

Rhaegar14
2015-12-13, 07:38 AM
In the spirit of a good debate, I'm going to offer a dissenting opinion!

First of all, unless your racial bonuses are perfect, it's hard in most (not all, but most) editions of D&D to get a character with optimized ability scores to have no 8s or 9s. And even 10s are still well below average. You have to remember, the player characters are special. An average NPC's ability score is 10, but an average PC's is 13. They are a cut above. 10 is low.

Secondly, I do not need mechanical penalties to roleplay a flawed character. I place very little stock in what ability scores, especially mental ones, represent when I am creating a character's personality, though I admit that this is because I find it extremely frustrating to try and roleplay a character of low or even average intelligence. They're mechanical numbers that determine bonuses on the d20. Besides, in a dramatically appropriate moment, to me it's more fun that they have a chance at overcoming those flaws -- when everything is on the line, heroes rise above. My Dex 9 Paladin is not very likely to win initiative in any combats, but it's still in the realm of possibility if it's important. If he had, say, a "Slow Reactions" flaw that acted as the opposite of Improved Initiative (chosen for this example because his lousy initiative rolls are, to me, possibly his most meaningful weakness), then that would go from "not very likely" to "almost never."

As far as systems that model this well go, Savage Worlds characters are all but required to take one Major and two Minor Hindrances at character creation. Some of them, like Heroic, are entirely roleplay based. Some, like One Eye and Blind, have mechanical drawbacks. So in that respect it's a pretty good system for this kind of thing.

Faily
2015-12-13, 08:25 AM
Related Questions:
Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?
Do you know of any systems that represent disability or below average ability characters well?
Have any related thoughts to share?

1. All the time. A low stat can often be a source of inspiration for a character's personality or how to play them. Low stats can be interpreted in different ways too. I have a favorite Ars Magica character that has an Intelligence of -2 (very slow and simple) and Communication of -2 (stammers).

2. Legend of the Five Rings have Disadvantages like Bad Eyesight, Blind, Missing Limb, Lame, Permanent Wound, Bad Health, Missing Eye... I see people take them for fluff all the time. Like if someone wants to play a veteran fighter, they might give him Missing Eye and Permanent Wound. All those Disadvantages give suitable penalties. A
Ars Magica also have Flaws that can do the same as above (Missing Eye, Lame, Missing Limb, Clouded Vision, Blind, etc).

3. You do know that D&D have rules for most of the things mentioned, right? Blindness is a status effect that is very much covered, so is mute and deaf. Having one hand limits you to, surprise, one-handed weapons (though depending on your GM's sense of realism, you might have difficulties drawing it out of its sheath). I'd agree that they don't have any specific rules on having a lame leg or a peg-leg, but most D&D effects that "injure" feet tend to reduce movement to half speed, so I guess that would be a logical conclusion.

BWR
2015-12-13, 08:34 AM
And then it occurred to me, in all the rules of D&D I don't know a single one that tells you how to play a one handed swordsman. Or a mute wizard (I'd just grab Silent Spell as a feat and only speak in character to people who knew sign-language). Nor does any game I know of have any rules for playing a blind character (unless they have an even more powerful second sight).


You need to look a bit harder. There are rules for blindness in D&D. There are obvious consequences for one-handedness and muteness too. Do you really need special rules for this?
There are also plenty of games out there with specific mechanics for these things (on the order of 'take this penalty, gain some other bonus').

Do I enjoy characters with low stats? Sure, sometimes. A bad stat can be a great source of entertainment and character. It's really only a problem if, as often happens in d20 games, you really do need a high score in several abilities to make a mechanical concept work decently and you don't get that.

Cluedrew
2015-12-13, 09:44 AM
There are a few little things I should clarify. First being I did not do a lot of research on this topic before-hand. There are various reasons for this but one is no matter how much research I do on this topic my knowledge base will be insignificant compared to that off all the other people who will read this thread. So for a simple conversation I'm willing to make a few mistakes and be corrected. So feel free to make them. So D&D has more rules for disabilities that I thought, in hindsight I shouldn't be surprised. Besides which I have yet another reason to go look at Burning Wheel.


I recall Noah Antwiler's comments on the subject in his Counter Monkey episode, "3d6 in Order" — "Some of you will dump stat down to an 8… and those people are considered fools!"I know of that video and although that line highlights my point I think the main point was not fear of weakness but fear of "losing control" of your character. Or that is my reading from things like the innkeeper rule and the line "I take that back, you guys aren't cowards, you're boring."

goto124
2015-12-13, 10:02 AM
fear of "losing control" of your character.

Personal opinion: I play games (video or tabletop) for the purpose of having power and control, instead of getting pushed about by other people and circumstances I can't do anything about.

Cluedrew
2015-12-13, 11:25 AM
I put it in quotes because you are not really losing control of your character, at least not in a large way. I guess the message that if you relinquish a bit of control you might be pleasantly suppressed by the results. But there is a half hour or so video on it if you want Spoony's opinion on the matter. I'm including the that sort of thing here, but I'm also talking about when the character is constructed without randomness as well.

GloatingSwine
2015-12-13, 12:04 PM
Personal opinion: I play games (video or tabletop) for the purpose of having power and control, instead of getting pushed about by other people and circumstances I can't do anything about.

3d6 in order doesn't remove control from you, it sets you a challenge.

Rather than having an idea for the character first, roll the stats, look at them, and think "what fun character could I play with these stats?".

Probably works better in one of the less rules heavy editions though. 3.X tends to assume a level of mechanical competence on the part of your characters' statline, 2nd cared a lot less about that.

nedz
2015-12-13, 12:18 PM
Some of my best characters have had a 5 or a 6.

This adds definition and makes space for someone else to fill in.

Int 6 on a Cleric, Cha 5 on a Dwarf Ranger (promoted to party leader :smallbiggrin:), Str 7 on a Beguiler.

The only one which annoyed me was an in-order generation method which left me with a 9 in a place I didn't want it. I knew the character I wanted to play, but I wasn't allowed to play it.

Knaight
2015-12-13, 12:55 PM
I've played plenty of characters with serious negatives about them, and some of them have been the most fun to play. What the serious negatives were varied, and not all of them line up particularly well to the D&D attributes, but more than a few would be equivalent to very low stats in something. As for systems which can handle characters with major flaws well, I'd honestly list most systems that were generally decent systems.

Anonymouswizard
2015-12-13, 02:17 PM
I don't tend to have particularly low stats, about an 8 would be my typical minimum. I like weaknesses, but they don't line up with the six stats, my current character's weakness is that he's too Lawful, this is causing problems.

CantigThimble
2015-12-13, 02:59 PM
The problem is there aren't really any interesting or flaws in D&D. Having a bad ability score is just... annoying. Shadowrun's system has flaws that really add a lot of character depth and opportunities for roleplaying and those characters often end up defined just as much by their flaws as their positive qualities. You really just need flaws that are genuinely interesting and some mechanical motivation for players to take them.

Edit: A few examples
Code of Honor: You have some kind of honor code you follow, they have a few suggestions but it's really up to you and the GM. If you break it you get penalties until you do something to make up for your breach.

Dependents: People are counting on you for something, this can be anything from sending part of your paycheck to your family to spending weekends taking care of your aunt.

Elf Poser: You're a human who thinks elves are the best thing since sliced bread. You want to look and act like elves do. Elves are usually weirded out by this and some humans consider you a race traitor.

Combat Paralysis: You freeze up when combat starts and your initiative gets chopped in half in the first round.

These are all really specific and interesting, being an elf poser doesn't delete your social skills from the game like charisma 7 does, but it DOES give some penalties. Same with combat paralysis and your combat skills.

Quertus
2015-12-13, 05:56 PM
Any no this is not role vs. roll. This is, if I want to role- or roll-play being bad at something, is that so wrong?

Related Questions:
Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?
Do you know of any systems that represent disability or below average ability characters well?
Have any related thoughts to share?

First, let me say that most of my 3.x characters are very sub-optimal. Which means that, in some parties, the party would have been better off ditching my character than splitting the loot and XP with someone who made such a disproportionately low contribution.

That having been said, my favorite 2e character was a statistically powerful but tactically inept wizard. There was no mechanical advantage to making him bad at combat, it just fit his character.

My second favorite 2e character... His stats were rolled in order. Happily, they worked out to be about what I envisioned for the character, except that his strength was too high. So I asked the DM if I could lower his sterength. I was told no. Then I asked if he still allowed 2-for-1 trades. He said yes. So I took 2 points off of his strength, and added 1 to his strength. Several times. Until the character was how I envisioned him. Again, no advantage to this aside from allowing me to play the character I envisioned.

In WoD, I usually have trouble limiting myself to just 7 points of flaws. Probably my favorite (certainly my most played) WoD character often tries to intimidate beings, but really isn't any good at it. Although it would be easy to spend a few off his many XP to make him good / great / nigh-unrivalled at intimidation, I don't, and continue to play him as overconfident in his (otherwise good) social skills.

I like playing characters with flaws. While I have greatly enjoyed a number of flawed characters, this only works for certain play styles. When you play in a system that cares more about game balance, like 3.x, with its CR system, expected wealth by level, and shared XP/treasure, it becomes much more important that the characters be able to pull their own weight. Which is, IMO, why I had less fun with my flawed characters in 3.x than in 2e or other systems.

As to a system that models flaws... There was no "tactically inept" flaw in 2e - and there didn't need to be. The issue is, are you taking flaws because that's how you want to play the character, or do you need mechanics to give you benefits for your flaws due to game balance being part of the implied social contract under which you are playing?

CantigThimble
2015-12-13, 08:09 PM
As to a system that models flaws... There was no "tactically inept" flaw in 2e - and there didn't need to be. The issue is, are you taking flaws because that's how you want to play the character, or do you need mechanics to give you benefits for your flaws due to game balance being part of the implied social contract under which you are playing?

My opinion on this is that story feeds mechanics just as much as mechanics feed story in roleplaying games. Some people can come up with great concepts with no rules backing and thats fine, some people need that incentive to start thinking about what flaws their character can have and learn to make it interesting from there. Sometimes game mechanics cause you to do things you never would have otherwise and those become a key part of how you play your character.

Restrictions breed creativity as Mark Rosewater says. You tell someone 'Come up with a character.' And they sit there for 10 minutes and come up with something bland and half-baked. You tell someone 'Describe a ranger who hates wizards.' and ideas about backstory, character traits and mannerisms are popping into their head right away. I've come up with richer Shadowrun characters than I ever would have without that positive/negative trait system. Even characters I was only ever designing mechanically took on a life of their own as I picked those traits.

Edit: And just to be clear about this, these traits were optional. You got great benefits and it almost always made your character stronger to pick your full allotment but there was enough selection that you could avoid making your character useless at what the party needed him to be able to do. Combat paralysis was a trait intended for utility characters, taking it on a fighter was a suicidal.

oxybe
2015-12-13, 08:14 PM
the challenge of a game should be due to challenging play, not being hobbled by the character generation system in a forced attempt to make the character "interesting".

hercules is an interesting and tragic character because of what happened to him, not for his likely average mental stats.

a halfling having to deal with a world built for someone human-sized or larger is interesting not because the halfling is weak but simply the nature of being a small creature in a medium-sized world. the opposite is also true: a human visiting halfling lands will likely have to deal with rooms and food portions made for someone much smaller then him. again: interesting due to the circumstances and characters involved, not rolled stats.

it's fine to you your stats as a vaulting point to help get an idea of your character's personality, but in no way does low stats a good character make. at best it's one facet of the character and not something that matters for every character. a flawed personality is generally far more interesting to interact with then the inability to bench press a small child.

Knaight
2015-12-13, 09:44 PM
hercules is an interesting and tragic character because of what happened to him, not for his likely average mental stats.

Sure. On the other hand, Othello being an interesting and tragic character corresponds more than a little to him having absolutely terrible judgement when it comes to friends; in D&D terms his wisdom probably isn't too strong, in any system which actually has a more applicable stat it should absolutely be tanked.

Jay R
2015-12-13, 10:15 PM
Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?

Yes, indeed. I once rolled an original D&D character with STR 3, DEX 16, low wisdom and high charisma. I was about to toss him when the DM said, "That's a nine-year-old kid."

So I played a very successful nine-year-old thief named David. Once, trying to get into a walled city, he walked up to the guard sniffling and saying, "I'm lost, and I'm tired, and I'm thirsty, and my feet hurt, and I can't find my mother, and .. and ... (start crying)." When the guard turned to get him something to eat, David stabbed him in the back.

oxybe
2015-12-13, 10:31 PM
Sure. On the other hand, Othello being an interesting and tragic character corresponds more than a little to him having absolutely terrible judgement when it comes to friends; in D&D terms his wisdom probably isn't too strong, in any system which actually has a more applicable stat it should absolutely be tanked.

the point is though, you can still have an interesting and fully fleshed out character without requiring negative stats and there is nothing wrong with not wanting those negative stat, especially since they can impact areas of play outside of "terrible judgement in friends" (in 3.5 wisdom's case it would affect your character's ability to withstand mental attacks (will save), notice things (perception skills and sense motive), have a job (profession skill), use divine magic (wisdom is the core "divine caster" stat)).

BootStrapTommy
2015-12-13, 11:25 PM
This is another thread where I tell the story of the time I played a mute precog in GURPS and it was awesome.

It was awesome.

And for the record, GURPS very much functions on the assumption that all characters have flaws they must overcome.

Slipperychicken
2015-12-13, 11:59 PM
And then it occurred to me, in all the rules of D&D I don't know a single one that tells you how to play a one handed swordsman. Or a mute wizard (I'd just grab Silent Spell as a feat and only speak in character to people who knew sign-language). Nor does any game I know of have any rules for playing a blind character (unless they have an even more powerful second sight).


Each edition of D&D has rules for blindness and deafness, and they tell you what effect being mute has on spellcasting. Third edition D&D had a boatload of flaws for stuff like this (i.e. obesity, insomnia, addiction, bum leg, poor eyesight, shaky hands, etc). Being one-handed is pretty obvious: No two-handed weapons, can only wield one weapon at a time, unless you somehow figured out how to use a sword with your feet or something.

Shadowrun encourages players to take all kinds of negative traits and disabilities. Even if you ignore them, it's pretty hard to make a good character without some low stats. And you can't cover every skill either, so there are always going to be deficiencies even if you have great stats and no negative qualities. Granted, it tends to be pretty unforgiving, so taking an extreme disability (like blindness

Arbane
2015-12-14, 12:07 AM
Some games, like the Riddle of Steel and Space: 1889 have a character generation system that GUARANTEES your character will be bad at something: Priorities you assign for stats & such, which mean you're going to have some weak stats.

Malifice
2015-12-14, 01:23 AM
This is literally the reason I don't play much DnD. And usually when I do I modify it to include a disadvantages mechanic of sorts.

The absolute best IMO for disadvantaged characters would be Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel, disadvantages not only are crippling, they cost points in character creation. This is because you can earn "Artha" (karma, luck, mystical storytelling energies, whatever) by playing out those disadvantages in an intriguing and plot changing way.

Thats an intresting mechanic. I like it!

You can do something similar with 5E. The DM can award a PC advantage (a mechanical benefit) for roleplaying a drawback or personality quirk (flaw, bond or ideal).

It's not much, but its the first 'narrative' mechanic I can recall seeing in a DnD edition ever.

RadioDask
2015-12-14, 01:55 AM
Yes, one of the reasons I was excited to play-test 5e.

goto124
2015-12-14, 02:38 AM
Even when given flaws, I end up downplaying the flaws a lot just so I can fit in the party instead of being one of those disruptive jerks who say "that's what my character would do". The flaws turn out to be useless, and might as well not exist.

Ranger who hates wizards? Well wizards can kill me with a fireball or the bazillion other spells they have so there's no way to act on it other than squirming about and muttering under my breath.

I may earn "Artha" for RPing my hate of wizards, but I'll waste all that Artha to get me out of the magic-powered jail with antiteleportation, antimagic, and all that jazz. And it's my flaws that got me into the jail.

Unless the entire campaign is about getting into those sticky situations to begin with, why bother with my flaws? I could just concentrate on the main plot that I signed up for, without making the other players frustrated about me hogging up the spotlight by being a troublemaker.

Âmesang
2015-12-14, 06:20 AM
Out of curiosity would it be considered "wrong" for my 3.5 gnome cowboy to take the "murky-eyed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#murkyEyed)" flaw from Unearthed Arcana?, considering the ranger's archery style would allow him to partially counter the affects via a free Improved Precise Shot (and fully counter it at epic with Uncanny Accuracy).

Well, at least with regards to ranged attacks. I've been so obsessed about him being able to craft/enhance his own rifles I completely forgot about giving him a melee weapon!

goto124
2015-12-14, 07:10 AM
would it be considered "wrong" for my 3.5 gnome cowboy to take the "murky-eyed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#murkyEyed)" flaw from Unearthed Arcana?, considering the ranger's archery style would allow him to partially counter the affects via a free Improved Precise Shot (and fully counter it at epic with Uncanny Accuracy).

Those are feats right? He's bascially countering his own flaw with lots of training and maybe some smartness by relying on other senses (hearing or even smell).

You could spin a nice backstory about how he loved archery, but was hit with an unfortunate curse/disease/accident that left him partially blind, and nearly gave up but decided to press on with the one thing he loved so much.

Fluff it right and your GM can accept it :smallbiggrin:

Âmesang
2015-12-14, 08:39 AM
Except instead of a bow he'd be using a rifle. :smalltongue: Though it would require some retooling of Rapid Reload (via the breechloading option from Dragon Magazine #321) and Manyshot (double/triple/quadruple?!-barreled rifle? Gnomes be crazy!).

Sort of like a cross between Clint Eastwood and Chuck Connors. The "Gnome with Gno Gname?"

Cluedrew
2015-12-14, 09:12 AM
Ranger who hates wizards? Well wizards can kill me with a fireball or the bazillion other spells they have so there's no way to act on it other than squirming about and muttering under my breath.I think you could make it work and maybe even make it interesting.

Ranger: Hey Sara, one Joe Wandman is looking for you, says he is an old classmate of yours.
Wizard: Yeah, Joe, I know him.
Ranger: Quick question, is he one of your hard working fellows or one of those BLEEPING 'I have a spell for that' BLEEPS?
Wizard: ... The latter unfortunately.
Ranger: You talk to him, I'm out.That adds some character and is not much of a disruption.

Oh, and to Slipperychicken: Your description actually better meets what I think of as "one-armed", which you may have read that as, but if you are one-handed (that is, the cut off is close to the wrist instead of the shoulder) you could still use the stump for some support, although not gripping, which means you could actually use some two-handed weapons. Still doable but not quite as straight forward as it may first appear.

Eisenheim
2015-12-14, 09:39 AM
I much prefer fate style disadvantages to playing a numerically weaker character in D&D, or the mechanically penalizing flaws of something like Shadowrun or L5R.

In fate, you have one aspect that's called out as a trouble, and all your aspects can work against you sometimes, but when they do, you're mechanically rewarded with fate points that you can use to move the numbers or the narrative in your favor later. That means characters have flaws that get them into trouble, but still get to be the heroes of the story.

goto124
2015-12-14, 10:04 AM
That adds some character and is not much of a disruption.

Joe Wandman has a spell for everything. The party just lost out on a highly useful NPC who could've made the entire plot much much easier. Even if Wandman still joined the party, the Ranger would have to hold back his words anyway. How long before the party members just say "Ranger, please stop saying that, it's annoying and you're chasing away helpful people and even antagonising them into hurting us"?


In fate, you have one aspect that's called out as a trouble, and all your aspects can work against you sometimes, but when they do, you're mechanically rewarded with fate points that you can use to move the numbers or the narrative in your favor later. That means characters have flaws that get them into trouble, but still get to be the heroes of the story.

So when the party gets trapped into a room that Joe Wandman could've teleported them out of, the Ranger now has to use a Fate point to get out. Erm....

Eisenheim
2015-12-14, 10:52 AM
So when the party gets trapped into a room that Joe Wandman could've teleported them out of, the Ranger now has to use a Fate point to get out. Erm....

Well, more or less, yes. The ranger's trouble gets him and the party (who should all get fate points for something like that) into a more difficult situation. Then they have to use the resources they do have to escape it. So instead of teleporting, the barbarian can slow the collapsing walls and spend a fate point to improve his roll, and the ranger can invoke his ferret companion, who scurries through a tiny vent to unlock the door from outside.

goto124
2015-12-14, 10:59 AM
And the entire group would have to be on board with all the extra trouble that's being caused, the use of their resources to save a teammate (or to save themselves because a teammate got them into trouble together), etc.

When there's a larger plot going on, and the group had signed up for that larger plot, why would they want this?

Eisenheim
2015-12-14, 11:09 AM
Well, I assume the entire plot wasn't about being helped out by the wizard, so the danger occurs while they're on that plot, and yes, if everyone is being compelled (having an aspect push them to bad choices or similar) they all get a fate point, or they can avoid it.

In that example, the players could say that the whole party refusing to work with the wizard because of the ranger just doesn't make sense, in which case the GM would withdraw the compel. Or the party could agree that it made narrative sense, but choose not to do it, and the ranger pays a fate point to refuse the compel.

People want that because they want to play stories where the characters sometimes get into bad situations and make bad choices because of who they are. Not everyone wants that, but that's what this thread is about.

Knaight
2015-12-14, 11:25 AM
And the entire group would have to be on board with all the extra trouble that's being caused, the use of their resources to save a teammate (or to save themselves because a teammate got them into trouble together), etc.

When there's a larger plot going on, and the group had signed up for that larger plot, why would they want this?

The group didn't sign up for a bunch of characters with no character flaws and perfect decision making interacting with some "larger plot" against other setting elements. If they picked Fate, it's probably because they wanted a more character driven, more personal game in the first place. They probably want a game where there are downturns and setbacks, and at least some of these are due to who the characters are, with the possibility of changing the characters in the process.

To use a literary example, would Lord of the Rings be more interesting without the conflict caused by Boromir succumbing to the ring and the fundamental Boromir-Aragorn conflict regarding how to oppose Sauron and what to do with the ring in general? Probably not.

nedz
2015-12-14, 01:16 PM
The group didn't sign up for a bunch of characters with no character flaws and perfect decision making interacting with some "larger plot" against other setting elements. If they picked Fate, it's probably because they wanted a more character driven, more personal game in the first place. They probably want a game where there are downturns and setbacks, and at least some of these are due to who the characters are, with the possibility of changing the characters in the process.

To use a literary example, would Lord of the Rings be more interesting without the conflict caused by Boromir succumbing to the ring and the fundamental Boromir-Aragorn conflict regarding how to oppose Sauron and what to do with the ring in general? Probably not.

this, and keeping with the LotR theme: who in their right minds would take a gardener on a save the world type quest ?

RadioDask
2015-12-14, 02:00 PM
I may earn "Artha" for RPing my hate of wizards, but I'll waste all that Artha to get me out of the magic-powered jail with antiteleportation, antimagic, and all that jazz. And it's my flaws that got me into the jail.

Unless the entire campaign is about getting into those sticky situations to begin with, why bother with my flaws? I could just concentrate on the main plot that I signed up for, without making the other players frustrated about me hogging up the spotlight by being a troublemaker.

The thing is, a good roleplaying focused campaign should be about the characters. The plot should emerge from the characters' personalities, flaws, beliefs, and hopes. Not all campaigns are about that. But roleplaying focused campaigns are. So that's where, imo, flaws have a place. Hack n' Slash campaigns could do without. It's also worth mentioning that mages being all powerful is a product of DnD mechanics.

Pex
2015-12-14, 02:15 PM
Here we go again.

1) You are not a superior player because your character happens to have a negative modifier.

2) It's fine for a character to have a negative modifier, but it is not a requirement for the ability to and enjoyment of roleplay and have an interesting character.

3) I do not mind my character having a negative modifier. I object to being forced to have one. I do not require my character have an 18 at first level. I object to the outright forbiddance of the possibility.

AMFV
2015-12-14, 02:17 PM
The thing is, a good roleplaying focused campaign should be about the characters. The plot should emerge from the characters' personalities, flaws, beliefs, and hopes. Not all campaigns are about that. But roleplaying focused campaigns are. So that's where, imo, flaws have a place. Hack n' Slash campaigns could do without. It's also worth mentioning that mages being all powerful is a product of DnD mechanics.

To be fair there are MANY MANY non-DnD all-powerful mages...

nWoD Mages are ridiculously powerful. The Wizards in the Belgariad are practically all-powerful. Ursula L. K. LeGuinn's Mages are very nearly all-powerful, depending on the circumstance. There are more examples, but to argue that it's a product of D&D is a little bit misinformed (particularly since two of the three sources I listed are earlier than even the earliest editions of D&D). Heck, in Norse Sagas there were the same things and those are significantly earlier than even those sources.

I would also argue that Hack/Slash vs. Roleplay aren't really good divisions. It's very commonly used, but it isn't really accurate. The idea that a combat heavy game has less story is to me simply absurd, talking != story. Story can proceed in myriad ways, and discussion is only one of them. If you can't roleplay a character based on how they act in a fight, that's a pretty serious characterization problem.

But I'll agree with you in one sense, flaws are most important in games where characterization is important. There are games where you'll play dozens of characters, then the need for individualism isn't so important. Also flaws aren't the only way to define a character, just part of a character.

CantigThimble
2015-12-14, 02:32 PM
Here we go again.

1) You are not a superior player because your character happens to have a negative modifier.

2) It's fine for a character to have a negative modifier, but it is not a requirement for the ability to and enjoyment of roleplay and have an interesting character.

3) I do not mind my character having a negative modifier. I object to being forced to have one. I do not require my character have an 18 at first level. I object to the outright forbiddance of the possibility.

I'd agree. In D&D, negative modifiers are simply oppressive because so many basic tasks are linked to them. Want to be a little foolish? Well your eyesight also sucks. Want to be a bit clumsy? Well then stealth and archery take a hit as well. Flaws need to be more specific than that to be fun for most people.

AMFV
2015-12-14, 02:38 PM
I'd agree. In D&D, negative modifiers are simply oppressive because so many basic tasks are linked to them. Want to be a little foolish? Well your eyesight also sucks. Want to be a bit clumsy? Well then stealth and archery take a hit as well. Flaws need to be more specific than that to be fun for most people.

Well there are specific flaws in the edition you're discussing. (Earlier than 3.0 D&D didn't link all tasks back to stats in exactly the same way as they do in that edition), which target specific stats. Tanking a major stat in 3.0 D&D, isn't the equivalency of a minor flaw (that would be putting no points in said skills), it's a major flaw, and that can define your character more so than a minor one, to my thinking.


Want to be a little foolish? Well your eyesight also sucks.

There's a flaw for that (a minus to will saves), alternatively, low Wisdom, but lots of ranks in perception.


Want to be a bit clumsy? Well then stealth and archery take a hit as well.

Flaw for that as well (a minus to reflex saves). Alternatively Zen Archery. Alternatively no points in Jump/Tumble and attempting those checks, alternatively simply narrating your clumsiness.

The last is important, your character doesn't necessarily need a flaw represented mechanically to have it.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-14, 02:45 PM
Frankly - I like the vibe of games with disadvantages. In practice though - they tend to be pretty horrible.

If you don't want a bonus in recompense for your negative - go for it! No one is going to try to stop you. I did play a blind character in 3.5 once - I took the Combat Focus feats to get 5ft blind-sight and Keen Listener so that I'd know where people were. I used a tower shield so that I wasn't useless in ranged combats. (Cover mode & ready an action to move & give full cover to a buddy. I shut down a blue dragon's breath weapon that way.) I enjoyed it.

However - it is FAR too easy to game the system when you can gain a bonus for that disadvantage. There are many disadvantages which aren't a significant penalty to your particular character. This is even more true for a heavily asymmetrical system like D&D.

Ex: A wizard doesn't really care much if he's missing an arm. The dwarf monk with a CHA of 5 doesn't care much if he's disfigured for an extra -2 on bluff/diplomacy. etc.

I do not think that there should be a specific system for disadvantages.

CantigThimble
2015-12-14, 02:53 PM
Negative trait systems are very DM dependent. He CAN make your disadvantages matter, and if you got benefits for them then he should. There are lots of ways negative trait systems can be done poorly but that does not mean they can't be done well.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-14, 02:54 PM
Negative trait systems are very DM dependent. He CAN make your disadvantages matter, and if you got benefits for them then he should. There are lots of ways negative trait systems can be done poorly but that does not mean they can't be done well.

Sorry - but if your argument for a disadvantage system is that the GM can just house-rule it to not be broken - why argue for it to be official rules at all? Why not just leave the whole thing in the realm of house-rules?

Edit: grammar

MrNobody
2015-12-14, 02:55 PM
I think that negatives/flaws can be a really good way to make a character more interesting. It's not mandatory that these flaws should have a direct impact on the game (you could play a one-eyed ranger without affecting its aim) but sometimes this unwanted effect can be a really interesting way to explore new options, new strategies.

One of the last character i played was a Int 7 CE oracle (PF) out on a mission for its god. Since it was built as a melee fighter and had powers and spells chosen to make it look like a barbarian, i could have played it like a "Standard Stupid Barbarian", but i instead chose to explore its lack of intelligence roleplaying it as having huge difficulties on focusing on more that one subject at a time (its mission was, obviously, its favourite subject).
It was typical for him to try to keep the party focused on the main objective ("The princess is in the tower, no need to explore the rest of the castle") or to seek the fastest way out of "unneeded problems", but he could come out with smart solutions for problems incurring during the "main" quest. It wasn't stupid, it was selectively clever.

I also played a one-armed cleric - wizard: he offered his right arm during a sacrifice ritual to have a divine help during a decisive battle.
After that event, i had to deal with difficulties in casting spells and expecially in using metamagic rods (of which i had plenty).
After a few games, during a fight in which i REALLY needed an empowered spell, i asked my undead servant to use its action to draw my empowering rod for me and tie it to my stump. The DM liked the idea and made it work: from then on i had my servant to switch my gear, until i managed to gain my arm back at the end of the quest (i could have done it earlier, but i vowed not to replace it until the quest was over).

Playing like this was FUN, and everyone at the table enjoyed it!

AMFV
2015-12-14, 02:56 PM
Negative trait systems are very DM dependent. He CAN make your disadvantages matter, and if you got benefits for them then he should. There are lots of ways negative trait systems can be done poorly but that does not mean they can't be done well.

Should they really matter that much though? I mean earlier you were stating that they matter too much (in D&D for example). So where is the appropriate middle ground?

RadioDask
2015-12-14, 03:09 PM
To be fair there are MANY MANY non-DnD all-powerful mages...

nWoD Mages are ridiculously powerful. The Wizards in the Belgariad are practically all-powerful. Ursula L. K. LeGuinn's Mages are very nearly all-powerful, depending on the circumstance. There are more examples, but to argue that it's a product of D&D is a little bit misinformed (particularly since two of the three sources I listed are earlier than even the earliest editions of D&D). Heck, in Norse Sagas there were the same things and those are significantly earlier than even those sources.

I would also argue that Hack/Slash vs. Roleplay aren't really good divisions. It's very commonly used, but it isn't really accurate. The idea that a combat heavy game has less story is to me simply absurd, talking != story. Story can proceed in myriad ways, and discussion is only one of them. If you can't roleplay a character based on how they act in a fight, that's a pretty serious characterization problem.

But I'll agree with you in one sense, flaws are most important in games where characterization is important. There are games where you'll play dozens of characters, then the need for individualism isn't so important. Also flaws aren't the only way to define a character, just part of a character.

I was trying to say Mages in DnD are powerful near as I can tell because of the Meta and game mechanics, not because of setting or fluff (at least in default DnD settings). I'm well aware that magic is powerful in many settings. Hack and Slash vs Roleplay is indeed a terribad division, and I shouldn't have used it. However, I never said or implied that the only way to create setting or story is through discussion, and nowhere did I say or imply that I or anyone else couldn't characterize through combat. What I meant, however, was that games where the primary goal is exploration and combat at the expense of character development and drama don't need a mechanic like flaws to be fun, whereas a game where the focus is on character's and drama at the expense of exploration and combat do. Those are not the only two types of campaigns, but most campaigns follow one of those two general structures, tilting toward one side or the other. Neither is better, but they are certainly different.

I feel that yes, where we agree is that flaws are pretty critical to characterization, but that they are also just one piece of the puzzle.

CantigThimble
2015-12-14, 03:10 PM
Sorry - but if your argument for a disadvantage system is that the GM can just house-rule it to not be broken - why are for it to be official rules at all? Why not just leave the whole thing in the realm of house-rules?

What? That's not what I'm saying at all. If you took 'I suck at stealth' as the barbarian so you can hit things with your axe harder then I as the DM can have a scenario come up where the rest of the party can sneak past something easily and you can't. Now that encounter is more difficult for you. The party either needs to leave you behind temporarily or face a problem directly that they could have avoided. There are all kinds of ways for flaws to be meaningful.


Should they really matter that much though? I mean earlier you were stating that they matter too much (in D&D for example). So where is the appropriate middle ground?

They should matter an appropriate amount for the benefit you get in return, and how much time you have to spend on each individual character's problems, and many other things. This is kind of like asking 'What CR of monsters should I use?' Without the context like character level, number of characters, level of optimization, tactical situation and how many spells and HP they've lost so far you can't answer that question. There isn't a hard and fast rule, it's up the DM's style and judgement, just like everything else.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-14, 03:18 PM
What? That's not what I'm saying at all. If you took 'I suck at stealth' as the barbarian so you can hit things with your axe harder then I as the DM can have a scenario come up where the rest of the party can sneak past something easily and you can't. Now that encounter is more difficult for you. The party either needs to leave you behind temporarily or face a problem directly that they could have avoided. There are all kinds of ways for flaws to be meaningful.

That's pretty much what you were saying then.

What about playing through an AP? Should the GM need to alter the AP to add required stealth so that that barbarian takes a penalty?

What if the advantage that they gain is worth more than the 4 skill ranks which make up for the disadvantage. And is the barbarian with the disadvantage still going to be worse at stealth than the cleric in plate armor and a Dex of 10? What if it's a bard who just casts invisibility when need be to more than counter said disadvantage?

AMFV
2015-12-14, 03:20 PM
What? That's not what I'm saying at all. If you took 'I suck at stealth' as the barbarian so you can hit things with your axe harder then I as the DM can have a scenario come up where the rest of the party can sneak past something easily and you can't. Now that encounter is more difficult for you. The party either needs to leave you behind temporarily or face a problem directly that they could have avoided. There are all kinds of ways for flaws to be meaningful.



They should matter an appropriate amount for the benefit you get in return, and how much time you have to spend on each individual character's problems, and many other things. This is kind of like asking 'What CR of monsters should I use?' Without the context like character level, number of characters, level of optimization, tactical situation and how many spells and HP they've lost so far you can't answer that question. There isn't a hard and fast rule, it's up the DM's style and judgement, just like everything else.

But I don't think that's necessarily the case. Disadvantages NEVER in my experience are even with the benefits you get from them. Either they have an enormous advantage (Shadowrun, most point buy creation systems) and are practically mandatory (so much so that they're hard-capped by the rules, D&D 3.5 [flaws]) or they're so horrible that they discourage anybody from ever using them (D&D [low stats], D&D 3.X [Level Adjustments])

I think that since we're discussing the primary benefit being in enhanced characterization and roleplay, that should be where the disadvantage comes. it shouldn't affect your character in roleplay. If my fighter Mr. Murdock, uses echolocation to find the baddies and disable them, that's best represented by getting him tremorsense, and then just roleplaying the disadvantage, same thing with my Samurai Zatoichi. In fact if you observe both characters in their respective media, their disadvantage almost NEVER applies in combat scenarios (unless it's to build more dramatic tension, which is primarily roleplaying) but rather in roleplay type scenarios. It's why I like Mutants and Masterminds' system, with complications not having any point value, but being mostly roleplay and adjudicated on the fly between you and the DM.

That system, prevents the disadvantages from vanishing (by giving XP bonuses). But it also allows for a much more diverse and complex view of the disadvantages than say a system that enforces a particular set of mechanical bonuses. That is better in my opinion, for something that should influence roleplay. I think things that are likely to give roleplay type rewards, should have mostly roleplay type penalties, rather than asymmetrical ones.

CantigThimble
2015-12-14, 03:35 PM
I'm not saying disadvantage systems are appropriate for every single group, playstyle or rules system. I personally don't use disadvantage systems for D&D. They CAN be done well, and when done well that can inspire better roleplaying and gameplay. That is straight up the only thing I am claiming. If you want to see how they can work then go out and experience it for yourself. Give Shadowrun a shot, or listen to some podcasters playing it, whatever you like. This is too complicated for me to properly explain secondhand in a poor context.

Edit: And on the whole in combat out of combat benefits thing, the fact that disadvantages are practically mandatory in Shadowrun really makes them more interesting in my opinion. Your character WILL be flawed, the question is in what way? Nobody's perfect, or if they are they're not very good in the first place. There are enough options that you really aren't intended to be ruining your character with flaws, just making them interesting.

Knaight
2015-12-14, 08:32 PM
However - it is FAR too easy to game the system when you can gain a bonus for that disadvantage. There are many disadvantages which aren't a significant penalty to your particular character. This is even more true for a heavily asymmetrical system like D&D.

This is only true if the flaw granting mechanism involves something like getting extra points in character generation. If you are instead rewarded when it comes up in a meaningful way, picking a flaw that doesn't actually matter just denies you that. I'd say that most systems with defined flaws have switched to that second model precisely because of the problems with the first.

Cluedrew
2015-12-14, 09:51 PM
1) You are not a superior player because your character happens to have a negative modifier.I actually agree will all of your points, I just want to highlight the fact that this is not what I'm talking about. First off I asked a question although I think I might know the answer to it, and I think that answer is something like "You are not in inferior player because your character happens to have a negative (or even un-optimal) modifier." Which seems to be the argument being made by some people. Not here in this thread yet but in some other places.


I'd agree. In D&D, negative modifiers are simply oppressive because so many basic tasks are linked to them.Well in the cases you present yes they are a little bit too general, but what if I want to play someone who never lifts anything heaver than a book? Or someone who just has no social skills? What about that?

Also I agree systems where "flaws" can never come up and give you some compensation anyways are not good. There are many other ways to make that work but those systems generally don't.

Slipperychicken
2015-12-14, 10:09 PM
If you are instead rewarded when it comes up in a meaningful way, picking a flaw that doesn't actually matter just denies you that. I'd say that most systems with defined flaws have switched to that second model precisely because of the problems with the first.

I came back to the thread to say this, then found you already said it.

Pex
2015-12-15, 12:37 AM
I actually agree will all of your points, I just want to highlight the fact that this is not what I'm talking about. First off I asked a question although I think I might know the answer to it, and I think that answer is something like "You are not in inferior player because your character happens to have a negative (or even un-optimal) modifier." Which seems to be the argument being made by some people. Not here in this thread yet but in some other places.



I've heard it many times how boring it is to play a "perfect" character. It was a few months ago in a thread someone went on a rant (my word) how he hates Superman and characters of that ilk. He went on and on how such characters were not interesting and could never be such. Personal experience I've met players who insisted characters must have a game mechanical flaw or else you're doing it wrong.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-15, 01:09 AM
I've heard it many times how boring it is to play a "perfect" character. It was a few months ago in a thread someone went on a rant (my word) how he hates Superman and characters of that ilk. He went on and on how such characters were not interesting and could never be such. Personal experience I've met players who insisted characters must have a game mechanical flaw or else you're doing it wrong.

I think that's a misdiagnosis of Superman's problems as a character (and he's actually a pretty decent character or he wouldn't have lasted for 80+ years). He actually DOES have a mechanical flaw - it's called kryptonite. The problem is that other than that weakness - very infrequently is he ever in real danger or even challenged in a fight.

So - there are 2 solutions which can be used to get good stories out of Superman.

1. Make him be challenged despite his strength. Man of Steel did a decent job by having his foes be equally crazy-powered. Smallville had an excuse for there to be kryptonite everywhere - which also caused powers which were a threat to him when combined with the kryptonite. Plus - he didn't have most of his powers for the bulk of the series.

2. Make fighting and physical challenging only secondary to the main plot of investigation/problem solving. Lois & Clark did a solid job of that - until the later seasons when they started adding in other super-powered craziness etc. (and then the show ended) But even then that wasn't the focus of the show.

Really - Superman only seems lame when written poorly when neither of those are used - which includes nearly every time that there is a Justice League or other team-ups he's a part of. (he's too much out of the league of all of the other supers for them to contribute much when he's around - Angel Summoner & BMX Bandit issues - makes all of them seem like lame characters) When written well he can be a solid character. But - any of his flaws as a character have nothing to do with his lack of mechanical flaws... since he has one!

themaque
2015-12-15, 06:55 AM
This is, if I want to role- or roll-play being bad at something, is that so wrong?
Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?
Do you know of any systems that represent disability or below average ability characters well?
Have any related thoughts to share?

1) Not at all
2) Sometimes It's fun to play and underdog and succed despite the odds.
3) Nothing that stands out to my mind. Maybe a point buy system?

The problem many people have about playing disabled characters in your traditional RPG, D&D like in some way, is that most games are set up so that monsters and baddies are ALREADY more powerful than you in some way. Once you start adding additional complications the odds really start stacking against you and you start to worry about those dice. It becomes a gamble, and the house always wins.... except when it doesn't. And those moments it can all be worth it! I've seen Blind Swordsmen in L5R and a one armed bandit in Deadlands go do amazing things. However...

Of course I've had guys with rubbish stats or overly harsh disadvantages die in the first or second game because the odds played out like odds do.

Nahro
2015-12-15, 08:35 AM
Hmm in German we have a saying that I like to use for that
"Eier legende Wollmilchsau" (roughly in english: Egg laying wolly milk giving pig)
Describing someone that can and wants to do everything.

I started my 2 Main Partys with a stat rolling system that ended up giving nobody any disadvantges (most lowest 10, 1 Char has an 8 Int because he's a Half Orc).
It works fine and we have a lot of fun, but I do admit that it can be boring at times. It is just not interresting when one PLayer fails a Roll another can just step in as easy - you eliminate consequences most of the time, and we find that when things go wrong, and you have to have and execute Plan B we all have much more fun.

On The other hand I had a One-shot as sorta kinda counter experiment:
I had a few of my Players that I gave pre-gen characters that were created with the though "how a character would look like before reaching level 1 on an actual Base Class"

They got a youn Wizard Apprentice with 2 level 0 Spells and mediocre stats and only a few Skill Points

A Spy of the Royal army, that is more a liabilty hence why he is basically just a guard at the castle dressed as commoner, Only exceeding a little in the DEX department, and having average Charisma.

An actual Commoner at the castle who was strong willed, and was basically the Doctor for all the commoners there.

They had overwhelming disadvantages and only meager advantages and were tossed in the scenarion, there actual characters had trouble surviving. Of course they all died, but - they grew to like these Characters and there interpretation of them so much that they were actually sad to see them go. And it spured one of the best role playing I have experienced as a DM in a long while.


I think that to a certain extend mechanical disadvantages should be present in a character, but in a healthy dose, and the characters should not only revolve around that one bad number.

AMFV
2015-12-15, 08:46 AM
I think that's a misdiagnosis of Superman's problems as a character (and he's actually a pretty decent character or he wouldn't have lasted for 80+ years). He actually DOES have a mechanical flaw - it's called kryptonite. The problem is that other than that weakness - very infrequently is he ever in real danger or even challenged in a fight.

You're mistaken. Kryptonite is NOT Superman's weakness. His weakness is that he can't be everywhere and save everybody. The best Superman stories include that. He doesn't care if he's injured or in danger, even if that could happen, but he can't protect everybody. Look at Superman 1, that's the main plot device in the end and the dilemma. That's why that story is remembered. And for another example look at the Death of Superman, his need to protect people at his own expense is again recognized. That's his defining character trait.

Cluedrew
2015-12-15, 09:01 AM
How long before the party members just say "Ranger, please stop saying that, it's annoying and you're chasing away helpful people and even antagonising them into hurting us"?The ranger has already stopped saying that... sort of, that is why he left and let Sara, the party wizard, talk to Joe Wandman instead of dealing with Joe himself.


I've heard it many times how boring it is to play a "perfect" character. It was a few months ago in a thread someone went on a rant (my word) how he hates Superman and characters of that ilk. He went on and on how such characters were not interesting and could never be such. Personal experience I've met players who insisted characters must have a game mechanical flaw or else you're doing it wrong.I also agree that the Superman problem is indeed a problem, but CharonsHelper and AMPV have pointed out there are many ways to make an interesting story despite that. Of those methods my favorite I have seen is accept that Superman will win every fight, so make the story not about fighting.

But in general I'm not trying to say that playing flawed characters is better more that it is an option. I say "more" because although that is what I think other seem to disagree and I am also trying to figure out why.

nedz
2015-12-15, 09:37 AM
I've heard it many times how boring it is to play a "perfect" character. It was a few months ago in a thread someone went on a rant (my word) how he hates Superman and characters of that ilk. He went on and on how such characters were not interesting and could never be such. Personal experience I've met players who insisted characters must have a game mechanical flaw or else you're doing it wrong.

Hey, I rolled my low stats fair and square. :smallamused:

I think you are over-reacting a bit, Superman is a Mary Sue - a common trope in fiction, but I Win forever is quite dull in games - mainly because it gives no openings for other characters or interesting play.

Like many players, though not all by any means, I have a need to play Competent characters (It's a trope) but the character's I've enjoyed the most, and I've played many, were those with a glaring weakness. Basically it creates more problems to be resolved, or worked around, and better drama too.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-15, 09:57 AM
You're mistaken. Kryptonite is NOT Superman's weakness. His weakness is that he can't be everywhere and save everybody. The best Superman stories include that. He doesn't care if he's injured or in danger, even if that could happen, but he can't protect everybody. Look at Superman 1, that's the main plot device in the end and the dilemma. That's why that story is remembered. And for another example look at the Death of Superman, his need to protect people at his own expense is again recognized. That's his defining character trait.

That's definitely a part of Superman's core character. However - I specifically mentioned kryptonite as a MECHANICAL weakness. (I'm not sure that trying to save everyone actually qualifies as a weakness anyway.)

themaque
2015-12-15, 10:45 AM
That's definitely a part of Superman's core character. However - I specifically mentioned kryptonite as a MECHANICAL weakness. (I'm not sure that trying to save everyone actually qualifies as a weakness anyway.)

Considering that desire to always do the right thing and behave honorable is very often a limitation for classes (Paladin) or often a purchased "negative" quality due to the difficulties that can arise in game for following it, I would say it could easily qualify.

Cluedrew
2015-12-15, 10:55 AM
Almost any character trait can be a disadvantage depending on the situation. A liar is less likely to be believed than an honest person, a criminal is less likely to be trusted than a knight or paladin.

PersonMan
2015-12-15, 11:26 AM
(I'm not sure that trying to save everyone actually qualifies as a weakness anyway.)

It isn't.

Having to try to save everyone all the time, though, that can create problems and can be exploited by enemies. The old "haha I put an orphan in a slowly-filling water tank on the other side of the city, save them or catch me" trick to force someone like that to give up chasing you because they need to go and save that orphan.

---

For me, taking a disadvantage or flaw that has a mechanical impact is a pair of wagers - first, I'm betting that it won't come up, or at least won't come up as much or as "strongly" as the benefit I get from it. Secondly, I'm betting that if it does come up, it'll be interesting and fun to play out the results of (this is mostly for flaws like '[under specific circumstances] you must pursue people you find attractive, no matter the situation', getting a penalty to an action is unlikely to create a situation like something along those lines does).

CharonsHelper
2015-12-15, 11:43 AM
The old "haha I put an orphan in a slowly-filling water tank on the other side of the city, save them or catch me" trick to force someone like that to give up chasing you because they need to go and save that orphan.

Gotta say - while I agree that I've seen that sort of thing before - it's often a result of hackneyed writing.

He's Superman. Why can't he spare a fraction of a second to grab them on his way to the orphan? Or call the cops? Or throw a brick at the villain first to stop him from getting away. (I DO think that his ultra-pacifism does qualify as a weakness - though it isn't nearly as annoying as Vash's in Trigun.)

AMFV
2015-12-15, 12:03 PM
Hey, I rolled my low stats fair and square. :smallamused:

I think you are over-reacting a bit, Superman is a Mary Sue - a common trope in fiction, but I Win forever is quite dull in games - mainly because it gives no openings for other characters or interesting play.

Like many players, though not all by any means, I have a need to play Competent characters (It's a trope) but the character's I've enjoyed the most, and I've played many, were those with a glaring weakness. Basically it creates more problems to be resolved, or worked around, and better drama too.

I disagree that Superman is a Mary Sue. Absolutely. You'll find that what makes a character a Mary Sue in actually isn't a list of attributes, but rather the quality and skill of the writer who writes them. I mean look at the fairy tale Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, that character hits almost every single attribute on the Mary Sue chart, but it's still remembered today as an excellent work. Look at Achilles (or almost any Greek Hero for that matter) they ALL fit to a T that Mary Sue list that the internet so loves, but they aren't remembered as Mary Sues. It's the quality of the character that matters, not a particular set or list.


That's definitely a part of Superman's core character. However - I specifically mentioned kryptonite as a MECHANICAL weakness. (I'm not sure that trying to save everyone actually qualifies as a weakness anyway.)

It certainly does... Because it's written as such. Essentially it is the best example of how I feel flaws should be. They aren't mechanical, they're characterization.

In fact I'll briefly pause to discuss hack writing (although I address that later, and agree with you), the worst Superman stories are the ones where Kryptonite is a major factor, Superman Returns for example. Superman becoming normal isn't a weakness, it's a removal of the fundamental aspect of his character. To jump franchises Superman without the power lacks the same degree of moral responsibility.

I feel that weakness need not be mechanical, characterization weaknesses should be largely characterization (the sort that you get extra XP or Fate points or what-have-you for negative affects by) They are roleplay and should affect more that side of things than the mechanical.


Gotta say - while I agree that I've seen that sort of thing before - it's often a result of hackneyed writing.

He's Superman. Why can't he spare a fraction of a second to grab them on his way to the orphan? Or call the cops? Or throw a brick at the villain first to stop him from getting away. (I DO think that his ultra-pacifism does qualify as a weakness - though it isn't nearly as annoying as Vash's in Trigun.)

True, there are many many many ways to do that particular thing wrong. Which is why there are so few good runs on Superman as compared to Batman or GL. But when done right it's amazing, there's a reason that the Death of Superman arc is one of the most remembered in comic history (and I believe still one of the best selling).