Character Flaws: Crunch vs. Fluff

[Talakeal]

In my homebrew system (link in sig), I used to have numerous flaws which provided bonus points with which to build your character. Some of these had mechanical effects, others were RP aids like the character has a phobia, or lives by a code of honor, or is on the run from the authorities, or is an alcoholic.

Recently though, I changed how it works is that only flaws which provide a numerical penalty give extra character points, typically enough to buy an equivalent bonus in some other area, thus allowing for more customizable characters.

RP traits instead provide circumstantial bonuses when acting in accordance with it, and circumstantial penalties when acting against it; so like if you have a code of honor to never see harm come to children, you might get a -2 penalty when attacking children but also a +2 bonus when defending a child. These neither provide nor cost character points.

I personally thought it was a massive improvement.

So, when I showed this to one of my players, he was extremely disappointed. Basically, he said that the only people who take flaws in an RPG are min-maxxers who are trying to game the system and get something for nothing, and that balanced flaws like this are completely uninteresting and unappealing, and that by making this change I have effectively removed all flaws from the game as no player would ever actually select one.

Is he right? Thought?

[Vahnavoi]

Your critic isn't exactly right, but they do have a point.

Look at this way: character flaws in a game make most sense as self-imposed challenges. F.ex., you choose to play without certain type of weapon to up the difficulty of a game or to force yourself to use different tactics. Flaws are supposed to change how you play the game.

Giving a nice, "balanced" amount of character points for any flaw allows them to be used for the opposite: making your character better at what you wanted to do anyway.

So pick: which is more important? Flaws changing the way characters are actually played, or players being able to use flaws as customization trade-offs?

If the former, do not give any character points for flaws. Don't try to enforce picking of flaws. Just provide the list of flaws and let players pick according to their own conscience. If you want to reward taking of flaws, figure out a reward other than character points.

If the latter, your system is fine as-is - you're adhering to what's essentially industry standard. Functional, if boring and derivative at this point.

[Composer99]

Your revised flaws are very similar to what D&D 5e does, in which flaws have no character build implications but instead are roleplaying hooks, with the reward of Inspiration for making use of them.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with your flaws on a conceptual level. Suffice to say I am not familiar enough with your system to have an informed opinion about the implementation.

[Berenger]

He is just plain old-fashioned wrong in his belief that only min-maxxers ever take flaws.

Sadly, he is also wrong to call the presented flaw balanced - unless you play in a very, uhm, 'special' campaign there will be very few reasons to attack children. If you want to attack a child anyway, the -2 penalty will typically not really matter because, come on, it's not going to be enough to give the child a fighting chance against a trained warrior. On the other hand, the +2 advantage will be triggered every time you defend a town from marauding goblins or save the world from a demon invasion since both can be reasonably be portrayed as protecting the children which are threatened by these events.

[MoiMagnus]

The Mutant and Mastermind SRD has a very good paragraph about Character flaws (called "complications"), which while not exactly answering your question, is I believe somewhat related to the issue:


Some roleplaying game systems include complications, disadvantages, or similar problematic character traits which offer “bonus points” for creating the character; essentially, you get more points for your character’s good traits when you take on some bad ones.

The problem with such “up-front” rewards for giving a character flaws is that the player gets all of the reward (the bonus design points) immediately, but the disadvantage only occasionally limits or affects the character, sometimes even randomly. Since there is only so much “screen time” in a game session, there is virtually no way for the GM to spotlight every one of every character’s disadvantages, so some end up being worth “more” in the sense of reward in exchange for drawbacks. Plus, after they have “paid out” their initial benefit, front-loaded negative traits are nothing but a burden to the character from that point forward, leading players to try and avoid or mitigate them as much as possible.

Complications address this issue by having a “pay-as-you-go” approach: if the GM uses a complication in the game, and the player responds by going along with it, the player gets a reward in the form of a [point which can be used to edit a later scene]. This means that although the hero has to deal with some “bad stuff” from time to time, there is an upside, and a reason for players to want their characters’ complications to come into play! Why do powerful heroes lead such complicated lived? They need the points!

In D&D 5e, that would correspond to "flaws give an inspiration each time they trigger in a significant way, which can be used to get an advantage to a later check". (A reroll could also be a potential reward for the flaws)

[Mastikator]

I think flaws that can have game mechanical implications should, and then let you get some other benefit in some other area. But a flaw should be meaningful both mechanically and in terms of roleplay to do that. "-2 to attack children" is precisely not that. They should be bad enough to discourage min-maxers from taking them while flavorful enough for roleplayers to want them. In my opinion good flaws would be something like Claustrophobia (fear/panic from being constrained or imprisoned), reckless (you damage your own equipment), cowardly (always disadvantage vs fear).

In the hero's journey stories the flaw is always the hero's downfall, and they don't become a true hero until they overcome it. In a tragedy their flaw defeats them. In horror the flaw kills them.

[Talakeal]

The child example was just something I came up with on the spot as an example, don't try and draw to many specifics with it. In the actual game the player and the GM would work out the details when it was selected and try to ensure that the negative and the positives both came up (roughly) equally often.

[Anonymouswizard]

The system I'm writing takes a very different approach, it refuses to stat flaws for pretty much the exact reason your player says (they're a favourite of min-maxers). Players will still take such flaws if they want to play a character with them, and will sign stat and skill points appropriately, but encouraging players to take them tends to end with them taking ones they impact then the least.

Yes, I know, not all players do it. I've been noted as occasionally taking very problematic flaws (extreme honesty, a reluctance to break the law, a fear of knives, nyctophobia*, a bad reputation with the very organisation we're working for...). But it's still a very common trend.

* That one never actually came up, bit of a shame.

[icefractal]

Sounds like he was just taking flaws for the free points, and no longer will. But is that really even a loss? With flaws having less mechanical benefit, people will only take those that fit what they wanted to play anyway, which sounds fine.

I think that giving points for flaws can serve a purpose, in the case where the players have a very competitive/efficiency attitude and would never take unnecessary hindrances, and in fact would complain if the other players did so. It's effectively a bribe to promote having flaws, and provides an excuse for players who would like to take them but fear being whined at for "letting the team down".

Fortunately the latter seems to not be a common attitude any more, but I recall seeing it in the Living Greyhawk days - some people could get quite aggro about their party members not taking the most efficient actions possible.

[Beleriphon]

The Mutant and Mastermind SRD has a very good paragraph about Character flaws (called "complications"), which while not exactly answering your question, is I believe somewhat related to the issue:

I was going to mention Mutatants and Masterminds. Spider-Man shouldn't get more build points because Aunt May is liability, Batman shouldn't get more points because Bruce Wayne has to find a way to sneak away from his own birthday party. That's the problem with flaws that provide points, they either don't come up that often or they end up being pretty much a non-issue. Take a Star Wars game where the Jedi Knight's flaw is "Only uses a lightsaber" and then uses the points to make lightsabering stuff better. How often is not being able to use the lightsaber going come up versus the points spending on making lightsabering better? Unless its literally ever time the Jedi busts out the lightsaber those were points well worth a minor inconvenience.

[Time Troll]

Flaws in RPGs really don't work well as written in most games.

If it's just pure fluff RP it can sometimes be nice to have for a player to follow. Once or twice a game the player might remember the character's flaw and maybe even RP it for a couple seconds.

The vast majority of mechanical flaws are a bit pointless, as they only give a slight negative effect. When a character has a "10 to hit, a -2 to does not matter too much. And a lot of the time it's very specific too.

And most mechanical players optimize, and just work flaws into the build. They make a melee power house, as sure take the 'ranged attack' flaw or give up something they won't use anyway.

And then too many games give a bonus for taking a flaw too. Take 'poor ranged attack' flaw and get two points of strength to make your melee monster build even more powerful.

But if flaws had real big effects, few players would want them. Few players want any type of real negative effect.


Take Rastilan from Dragonlance, he had the Constitution and Strength of like 6, was extremely weak and sickly.And using his magic drained him. Quite often he was quite helpless. Few players would even consider playing use a character.

If a flaw does not have a major impact on the play of the character, why even have them?

[Anonymouswizard]

What can also work is the 'everybody must take a flaw, here's the list' approach. So the repayment for taking a flaw is already built into character creation and you just have to decide which one it is. It's the equivalent to including an 8 on the standard array.

But there's a reason games have been moving towards metagame currency for flaws over over bonus character points (or even bonus XP). It makes flaws much more self balancing, if your flaw never comes up you never get the renumeration, while if it does the advantage is temporary. So if you take one armed and it never hinders you that's okay, because it's also not given you a bonus.

Burning Wheel actually goes one step further and actually asks you to pay for flaws. Because they get you bonus Artha. That's a good thing, and you pay points for good things (although BW also rejects chatty building balance, so that's not a concern for it).

Although bonus XP for flaws is also alright if you're not a group who cares about balance between PCs. I just personally don't like it as much (in games with no metagame currency I'll give out rerolls instead).

[Vahnavoi]

Let's backtrack a bit and talk about where the idea of flaws even comes from: non-game fiction.

The major idea behind having flaws built in a game system to begin with, is the idea that flawless characters in fiction are boring. If roleplaying games are supposed to model fiction, then characters should have flaws.

The issue with this train of thought, when applied to any traditional roleplaying game, is that flawless characters in non-game fiction are only so through authorial fiat. Players in a game have no such fiat: their ability to play flawless characters depends on their ability to actually play flawlessly, which is typically hard. In a very real and practical sense, flaws of the player are flaws of their character; a player can't entirely escape their own lack of skill or poor decision-making, regardless of what reads on their character sheet.

So the idea that you need to explicitly stack prosaic flaws on characters, let alone enforce taking them or mechanically enforce their effects (poor play decisions already enforce themselves), in order to create interesting flawed characters, is dubious from the get go. Lists of such flaws are, at best, suggestions of what the game designer(s) would find interesting flaws in a literary character. The joke is that even the game designers can't figure out how anyone would find such flaws interesting to play in a game, so they try to sell those flaws by giving a trade-off in form of character points, or whatever. This is the second dubious thing, and the real reason why flaws are often used for min-maxing: the players have no real motivation to play a flawed character, the game designers failed in selling the thing they tried to sell, and so the only take-away for those players is the extra points they can use to something unrelated that they want to do.

[Telok]

So, when I showed this to one of my players, he was extremely disappointed. Basically, he said that the only people who take flaws in an RPG are min-maxxers who are trying to game the system and get something for nothing...

Nsh, you're cool. Anything that has no mechanical effect will be completely ignored by those only interested in the mechanics of the characters. That's not a problem. Stuff that gives any form of bonuses for no real drawback has always been the optimizers fetish. That never changes between systems. You disappointed one min-maxer by removing some free build points is all.

Stuff that gives a meta-currency only matters if the system relies heavily on that meta-currency in some way. That's where M&M and others get it right while D&D 5e failed. The players & DMs have to want the rp and comlications to come up, and it has to be the entire party being willing to have your flaw/whatever matter. M&M has the conceit that the characters are heroes who will all want to save somebody's relative from the evil villian, or they're at least on board with punching the bad guy, and the return is actually relevant enough that everyone cares. D&D has the problem that the game is 100% fine if everyone forgets that inspiration even exists, plus the bonus it gives is both not very interesting and can be gotten lots of other ways.

[Talakeal]

He was undoubtedly upset that he was no longer able to game the system for free points. But he also said that most players would feel the same way, so I was effectively removing flaws from the game as they are now just wasted space that will never get used.


Also, vahnovoi, for me flaws are more about verisimilitude and reality than trying to create good drama or recreate literary characters. One of the goals of my system is to be able to create “real” people, and most everyone I know has at-least some traits that would be considered flaws in RPGs. Heck, look at the recent push for the ability to play disabled people in D&D.

[Anonymouswizard]

Stuff that gives a meta-currency only matters if the system relies heavily on that meta-currency in some way. That's where M&M and others get it right while D&D 5e failed. The players & DMs have to want the rp and comlications to come up, and it has to be the entire party being willing to have your flaw/whatever matter. M&M has the conceit that the characters are heroes who will all want to save somebody's relative from the evil villian, or they're at least on board with punching the bad guy, and the return is actually relevant enough that everyone cares. D&D has the problem that the game is 100% fine if everyone forgets that inspiration even exists, plus the bonus it gives is both not very interesting and can be gotten lots of other ways.

To be fair, D&D5e puts a lot of effort into sidelining it's metacurrency. Like, you're literally only allowed one point at a time, when even WFRP allows a starting character to hold several (and assumes that burned points will eventually be replaced). It feels like Inspiration was stuck in the game because the cool indie games are playing with metacurrency, but the designers didn't want to integrate it so no character abilities really interact with it and yes the bonus is tiny.

Meanwhile in Fate getting points for setbacks is an easy sell because it's part of the intent of the game. But even then there's many groups who don't really use Compels.

[Vahnavoi]

Also, vahnovoi, for me flaws are more about verisimilitude and reality than trying to create good drama or recreate literary characters. One of the goals of my system is to be able to create “real” people, and most everyone I know has at-least some traits that would be considered flaws in RPGs.

"Real people have flaws so your characters should too" is not appreciably better than "good literary characters have flaws so your character should too" and has largely the same pitfalls. Namely, by virtue of their players being flawed, majority of characters already end up flawed in actual play - there is no actual need to tack on prosaic flaws just to satisfy that condition. At best, a list of such flaws can act as suggestions for what would be interesting to play. (As far as character points go, giving points for flaws does not serve verisimilitude in any shape whatsoever, so shouldn't be considered for that reason.)


Heck, look at the recent push for the ability to play disabled people in D&D.

That push largely doesn't come from people who'd actually want to play disabled people as disabled people nor from people concerned with realistically modelling disabilities. Ignore them.

[Cluedrew]

I also think that flaws are taken for other reasons than min-maxing. Even when implemented as granting build points in exchange for a purely negative effect. Other ways to implement them can encourage those reasons on top of that. The meta-currency use is pretty good but I think - if you don't have a meta-currency in your system - that pairing the good and bad together works quite well.

I also disagree that this system cannot be "min/maxed". The fact that the negative and positive aspects are linked makes it harder but you cannot make it so the two come up exactly as often and with the same importance so there will be some that come up positive more often for some character/campaign combination. I suppose you could make the negative side overwhelmingly more stronger to avoid that but I recommend you don't do that.

[Quertus]

What is the purpose of flaws? There's many answers to this question, but I think I prefer this one:

It's effectively a bribe to promote having flaws, and provides an excuse for players who would like to take them but fear being whined at for "letting the team down".

Granted, I prefer to play with people who don't get uppity when I decide to play a tactically-inept academia mage, or a Sentient Potted Plant, with 0 mechanical advantage for me doing so, but at least having flaws in the system puts people in the mindset that they may have to deal with beings who aren't all identical Determinator Spike optimizers.



The child example was just something I came up with on the spot as an example, don't try and draw to many specifics with it. In the actual game the player and the GM would work out the details when it was selected and try to ensure that the negative and the positives both came up (roughly) equally often.

I'm kinda opposed to this mindset, actually. If I go through all the effort to ensure that my "verbose" trait is never disadvantageous, I don't want to be punished for that work by it never being advantageous, either :smallannoyed:

I want the GM to play the world honest, and the PCs to be Incentivized to (or, at least not deincentivized from) play smart.

Look at it this way: all the dumb mistakes your players make - do you want to *encourage* them to keep making them (and to make more) by *rewarding* them for attacking the Avatar of Hate? Do you want to discourage them from handing the encounter well by giving them less reward for doing so?

Same idea with traits. If they have an upside and a downside, the players should be free to put in the work to only her the upside, and not be punished for doing so by losing out on the reward that you would have given them for being blindsided by their flaws.

[Time Troll]

"Real people have flaws so your characters should too" is not appreciably better than "good literary characters have flaws so your character should too" and has largely the same pitfalls. Namely, by virtue of their players being flawed, majority of characters already end up flawed in actual play - there is no actual need to tack on prosaic flaws just to satisfy that condition.

Real people, and even many well written fictional characters have major flaws that effect their lives. Ask how many players would want to go that far for a flaw. There are a handful that will, but not many.

To have a clumsy swashbuckler or a wizard that forgets spells is "too much". Players want the "-2 to fear saves vs spiders", as they know that will only come up maybe once a game and that it won't matter much anyway. The scary spider might have a fear DC of 12, but the character will likely make the roll anyway.

And should the character encounter even just two spiders, the player will complain that the GM is targeting them.

[Pex]

Min/maxers will use flaws to increase their optimization, but that doesn't mean they will ignore the flaws. It's the munchkins who ignore flaws or choose that which will have as little impact as possible. That Guy players will also exploit flaws to use them as an excuse to be disruptive to the game. For example, using "greedy" as an excuse to steal from the party and/or keep found party treasure for themselves. Your friend is likely used to playing with munchkins and That Guys.

Taking flaws to gain extra benefits is itself a viable game mechanic. How to balance it within the game system is up to the designer. In my opinion it couldn't work in Class System games like D&D because there's no objective measuring value. What flaw is worth gaining darkvision? It works in Point Buy games like GURPS because you only need to give a point value to the flaw and not worry about the specific benefit gained.

If this is only for your personal use decide for yourself if your players would embrace it or exploit it. If it's potentially to be used by anyone, if you prefer make it officially an optional thing and let the DM decide for his game whether to use them or not.

[Tanarii]

Take Rastilan from Dragonlance, he had the Constitution and Strength of like 6, was extremely weak and sickly.And using his magic drained him. Quite often he was quite helpless. Few players would even consider playing use a character.

If a flaw does not have a major impact on the play of the character, why even have them?
Point of order, Raistlin had Str 10 and Con 10. The first player just chose to play them as a sickly weak character with health issues.

[icefractal]

If a flaw does not have a major impact on the play of the character, why even have them?Not every positive quality a character has is a Big Deal™, and not every negative quality needs to be one either. IMO, it makes a character feel more interesting to have some secondary areas of competence that aren't their "main shtick", and some flaws that are just being imperfect rather than a tragic flaw that will define their destiny.

Not that you can't have the latter, just that it's not the only kind of flaw worth having.

[Anonymouswizard]

That push largely doesn't come from people who'd actually want to play disabled people as disabled people nor from people concerned with realistically modelling disabilities. Ignore them.

I'm having trouble parsing that, but...

I'm not one of the people actively pushing for disability inclusivity, but it matters. I actively include a note in my game, and state that if a player wants an item to increase their character's ability to act such as a wheelchair or prosthetic hand they can start with it for free.

Serious question, can you name explicitly dyspraxic characters in a work of fiction? Does the average person even know what dyspraxia is? If I want to play a character with my condition how do I manage it? In most games I just drop Dexterity/Agility buy up some skills to 'average' to reflect the physical side and roleplay the mental side, but I can't do the first in D&D5e without eventually becoming too good at certain things.

[QUOTE=Time Troll;25091644]Real people, and even many well written fictional characters have major flaws that effect their lives. Ask how many players would want to go that far for a flaw. There are a handful that will, but not many.

To have a clumsy swashbuckler or a wizard that forgets spells is "too much". Players want the "-2 to fear saves vs spiders", as they know that will only come up maybe once a game and that it won't matter much anyway. The scary spider might have a fear DC of 12, but the character will likely make the roll anyway. /QUOTE]

Hi, real person with pretty significant disability here! Did you know that it's not uncommon to avoid things that your disability makes you bad at, and that disabilities can be things other than all encompassing.

And a clumsy swashbuckler sounds like a blast to play, maybe I should pick up that All For One. You're good with the rapier but rubbish at acrobatics, so you'd better fight a bit unusually for your archetype.

[Vahnavoi]

Real people, and even many well written fictional characters have major flaws that effect their lives. Ask how many players would want to go that far for a flaw. There are a handful that will, but not many.

To have a clumsy swashbuckler or a wizard that forgets spells is "too much". Players want the "-2 to fear saves vs spiders", as they know that will only come up maybe once a game and that it won't matter much anyway. The scary spider might have a fear DC of 12, but the character will likely make the roll anyway.

And should the character encounter even just two spiders, the player will complain that the GM is targeting them.

You clearly don't understand the argument I'm making. I'll give you a few examples from my real games to hopefully illustrate the point.

To wit: the system used for the examples was Lamentations of the Flame Princess - an OSR system with no prosaic flaws, that is, no entry on the character sheet for flaws, no list to pick those from, no reward for any kind of bad play. The only direction for roleplay I chiefly added for premade characters is a max five word synopsis of the nature of a character (f.ex. "man-hating elf barbarian") accompanied with three quotes from that character (f.ex. "The world belongs to elves. Mankind is cancer. It wasn't me and they made me do it!") Most characters don't even have that, their players decide moment-to-moment how to portray them.

So do or do they not have major, life-affecting flaws?

Yes.

The most common example is alcoholism. Mechanically, in the game, alchohol is just a poison. You pay money for it and get penalties for drinking it. Yet, quest for alcohol and drinking it has lead to situations such as:

1) First thing PCs do in a wizard's tower is raid the wine closet. Later, one of them pops open a bottle and gets poisoned from spoiled wine.

2) A dwarf gets so drunk, in the middle of a dungeon crawl, that they pass out. The other characters, tired of his drunken antics, leave him behind. He gets lost in the dark, falls into a pit and is never seen again.

3) A bunch of characters have achieved of their goal of being turned into vampires. They pop a bottle to celebrate the occasion, only to find out that alcohol no longer has an effect on their undying bodies. Mortified, they set out to find a cure, just so they can get drunk again.

4) Two characters get so drunk in a tavern, they go dancing pantless on the streets and one of them passes out and falls in a ditch. Both get arrested for public indecency. (Being violent lunatics, they later go to murder both the Sheriff and his deputy; one escapes, the other gets hanged. It's a different story, but it's good to remember they would've never ended up in that situation if they hadn't been drunken morons.)

The times where someone was below maximum efficiency due to being drunk or hangover are numerous enough that there'd be no point in counting.

See all those examples? It's because my players culturally associate drinking with partying and having fun, and understand that their characters would too. They see alcohol and getting drunk as its own reward. More modern games with lists of prosaic flaws add flaws like "drunkard" or "drug addict" (etc.) on their lists and come up with complex mechanics and incentive systems for them, just to mimic a fraction of the power that the cultural association has on the behavior of my players and their characters.

At no point of any of these events, did I as game master have to ask my players if they wanted to go that far for a flaw. I never had to utter the word "flaw". My players just did go that far because they wanted to go that far and any regrets they might have over the results only exist in retrospect. I never get blamed for "targeting players" because alcohol is such a mundane and common object, nobody thinks to question its existence. If anything, they'd be more confused if there wasn't any. More often than not, they're the ones asking for its presence to begin with.

This isn't a handful of players; the relevant cultural assumptions are so widespread that in a playgroup of five, you're likely to get at least one inclined towards such behavior. But the frequency of the specific example is somewhat besides the point: even if any specific flaw isn't common, if real people are flawed, the total amount and total frequency of flaws that'd influence how your players play a game is high enough that seeing truly flawless play is extremely rare.

---

@Anonymouswizard: you posted while I was writing this; my post was delayed due to server problems. I'll write you a separate reply.

[Vahnavoi]

I'm having trouble parsing that, but...

The people making the push are not talking about how to implement flaws in games for the reasons Talakeal is; they have different motives and goals, and hence their arguments do not touch on the whys and why nots of what Talakeal is asking. Hence, ignore them.


I'm not one of the people actively pushing for disability inclusivity, but it matters. I actively include a note in my game, and state that if a player wants an item to increase their character's ability to act such as a wheelchair or prosthetic hand they can start with it for free.

I am severely nearsighted. I never assume nor require free sight correction for any of my characters as part of my inclusion a game, because my character isn't me, and I don't have to play one with my particular flaws. Whether I, as game master, would grant them for free depends on genre of game more than anything. If sight correction is trivial in the context of the game, I do things the same as you. If not, then the choice to play a near-sighted person has to be made with the understanding that sight correction is expensive and limited in availability; in short, the player has to be prepared to deal with all the BS I have to deal with in real life.


Serious question, can you name explicitly dyspraxic characters in a work of fiction? Does the average person even know what dyspraxia is? If I want to play a character with my condition how do I manage it? In most games I just drop Dexterity/Agility buy up some skills to 'average' to reflect the physical side and roleplay the mental side, but I can't do the first in D&D5e without eventually becoming too good at certain things.

I can't, but if you go back, you'll notice that my argument is built on the notion that games and non-game fiction aren't the same field. The inclusion or absence of dyspraxic characters in the field of wider fiction is hence irrelevant.

The practical way to model any given disability is to use expert knowledge of a player to alter game descriptions to suit. Trying to use the abstracted conflict resolution systems of most RPGs to model them is a fool's errand: those systems are not built with sufficient rigor nor degree of accuracy to do any particular problem justice. If you want real mechanical representation, you are always looking at making a game specifically centered around that disability. For example, there are simulation games made to model experience of autistic or ADHD individuals for a neurotypical person. (For my personal problems, I would skip game level implementation entirely and just hand my eyeglasses to whoever I need to understand how bad my sight is. Technically, they overcorrect to the wrong direction when a person with normal sight looks through them, but it still gets get the message across and triggers a predictable reaction: "Oh man, you really can't see anything without these, can you?")

For D&D, shortly, what you're already doing is close to the best option. At most, you can improve it by asking your DM to give you less points, so you don't end up unrealistically good in some other area. Anything more would be pointless.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

There's actually several games that implement Flaws in a significant way, and do so quite well, and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned them yet because three of them are pretty prominent.

In Blades in the Dark, every character has to pick a Vice that characterizes the way they relieve their stress. Then, you can earn up to 2 xp points per session by struggling with your vice and having it cause trouble. (This is out of IIRC 10 XP required to pick up a new character perk.) What I've found is that it's a pretty loosey-goosey take, because the intent is not to punish the player for having the flaw, or to make it a significant problem, but to make sure players are continuing to push it into the fiction of the game, adding color and interest to the character.

In Burning Wheel, you have Traits, which earn you Fate when they cause trouble for you. (Fate is a currency that gives you bonuses on rolls and can be invested in a skill or stat to upgrade it in the long run.) Interestingly, all traits bought at character creation cost you trait points; there's none that give you trait points. Even the negative ones, you have to invest in. Their idea is that traits have an impact on the narrative, so you have to pay for them because they impact the narrative. The more significant a trait is, the more trait points it costs.

In games built on the Cortex Plus and Cortex Prime frameworks (examples include Leverage, Firefly, and Marvel Heroic), flaws are a core part of the game: every character has three Distinctions, which can wielded at any time as an advantage or as a detriment. If you include a Distinction in your roll (you can always include exactly one Distinction), you can include it as a d8, or you can take a "Plot Point" and include it as a d4. Plot Points let you do fancy stuff on future rolls that help you increase your die total, or sometimes they're required to use character abilities. When you take a Distinction at a d4, it has a 1/4 chance of causing a complication (which earns you more Plot Points) that causes trouble in the scene. So it's a kind of opt-in flaw deal, but the people who are choosing to activate their flaws a lot will have a whole pile of Plot Points ready for the important fights/actions in the game.

Finally, Fate has literally been built around this for years. Like in Cortex, you have traits which can be invoked in positive or negative ways. Unlike Cortex, every character trait works like this, ditto for scene traits. The Compel engine is what drives the drama of play, with players racking up Fate Points in exchange for leaning into their traits and causing trouble. (One trait, the Trouble, is explicitly written as a trait that's generally a disadvantage.)

So yeah, it absolutely works to mechanize flaws, and there are many acclaimed games which have successfully done so. It seems like there's even a variety of approaches here, but it seems like the common thread is that they all reward players on an ongoing basis. This makes sense--if you try to pack all the reward upfront, then as the designer you're trying to guess how impactful a trait will be to the players going forward. This is the problem that plagues a flaw system like GURPS: players will spot cases where this assumption is incorrect for their campaign or their build. By rewarding players when their flaw becomes relevant, you not only adapt the reward to the frequency of the relevance, but you encourage the players to make their flaw relevant during play.

So it gets optimizers to make their flaw more present, and for the players who enjoy playing flaws, it gives them a reward and ensures that they aren't harming the success of the group.

[Aerys]

I think the balancing is great, but you could add more flexibility by allowing a flaw to be balanced by a bonus in a unrelated area. In the World of Darkness they had Merits and Flaws, which could be used for character points, but also could be used to balance each other. And most GMs only allowed so many of each.

In that system you could choose minor or major flaws and merits, with I believe 1 major being equal to 2 minor. There were several categories, such as supernatural, physical, mental, etc. Some of these were not really workable as a character, but I'm sure you could come up with a list that works for you and your players. So if they want to be good at something they are lacking in another area.

As far as what the mechanical bonuses would be, I'm always wary of the min/maxing problem since once one person does it, it tends to ramp up the other players who want to be on a level playing field. So I think just doing it on a case by case basis like you were saying is best, rather than having a list, which would inevitably have the "optimal choice" combination somewhere in it.

Ideally merits and flaws would tell you what the player is looking for in the game, or more likely what they'd like to avoid, which is still valuable information.

[Anonymouswizard]

The people making the push are not talking about how to implement flaws in games for the reasons Talakeal is; they have different motives and goals, and hence their arguments do not touch on the whys and why nots of what Talakeal is asking. Hence, ignore them.

True, and because we're agree on three genetics rather than the specifics I'm not really to go much further.

On the subject on realism/representation, it doesn't require a list of started flaws in any way, just mention of out and somewhere to write it on the character sheet (if it even needs that). A list of examples can be good, but just make it clear that you can play a flawed character and some people will surprise you with what they take.


Also, I'm actually going to disagree with Talakeal's player, I think that just like intentionally breaking the game taking flaws just for the extra points is actually the minority. It's just that they're the kinds of people more likely to discuss the character building aspects of the game.

But ultimately I think you get more realistically flawed characters by not giving bonus points for them. Because when you give me bonus points for them my first instinct is to grab the local equivalent of Terminal Illness (sure I'll die in the next couple of in-game years, but if I've created a replacement character by then it's just free points). Instead you get it by adding a player how their character is flawed. Yes you'll get a lot more characters with one or two minor flaws, but combine that with the characters developing quirks during okay and it becomes a lot more realistic.

Also beats the overly encompassing flaw. Half the example characters in the Ubiquity version of Space 1889 have the 'Underprivileged' flaw, and due to the soft limit of one flaw per character the implications are interesting.

[Tanarii]

There's actually several games that implement Flaws in a significant way, and do so quite well, and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned them yet because three of them are pretty prominent.
They seem very abusable, just in game play as opposed at creation. Take a negative on less important rolls, in order to gain a bonus saved for later more important rolls or even buy character advances. Crane's Torchbearer for example has that kind of system.

[Cluedrew]

They seem very abusable, [...] Take a negative on less important rolls, in order to gain a bonus saved for later more important rolls or even buy character advances.I can speak to Blades in the Dark and Fate, so I will skip those.

Blades in the Dark's vice system is distributed across all characters evenly in terms of mechanics. Its mostly just flavour on a recovery mechanic. Also it is that roll, its not a modifier on other rolls you make, and it is pretty much the only reliable way to recover that resource.

In Fate you can't choose exactly when it goes off, it goes off when it would apply. Now it is very narrative based and you could try to argue it applies only when you want it to, narrative lawyering or something. Let's say that you are reasonable and don't do that or the rest of the group calls you out on it. What's left is trying to arrange things so an established flaw comes up when it is not important overall but not when it could have lasting repercussions. You could even create an in-universe justification for it by creating a character who knows they are flawed, generally accepts that but also realises when they really have to keep it in check.

And if that sounded reasonable for a second I have fooled you into role-playing a character and I win. . . . No I don't because that is not how that works. Jokes aside the "min/maxing" behaviour is not that far off from the wanted behaviour of playing an interesting yet troubled character. So while not perfect I think it is an improvement over the traditional model.

[Time Troll]

Not every positive quality a character has is a Big Deal™, and not every negative quality needs to be one either. IMO, it makes a character feel more interesting to have some secondary areas of competence that aren't their "main shtick", and some flaws that are just being imperfect rather than a tragic flaw that will define their destiny.

But does having a weak, limited mechanical flaw in exchange for a power or ability really make a character more interesting? The character gets a feat, but oh no takes a -2 to something the character will never do anyway.




See all those examples?

I'm not sure your examples count as flaws. If the players and GM think being drunk is so cool, then that just alters the game reality to be that as well. Everyone has a great time with the characters just being drunk. That is at least part of the whole game. And everyone agrees and everyone is happy.

Though, like i said, it is still the players picking and choosing when the flaw happens, though also with the GM on thier side it does not matter much. If the group was doing a typical adventure type quest common in most RPGs, and suddenly the players wanted to derail the quest and not do it at all and said "Our characters go out and drink and party", and the GM though that was a great idea to, then the whole rest of the game would be "party night drinking". Nothing wrong here.

It does not work in most RPGs, where the characters do a quest or mission. To have a character say "I ignore and abandon the group to go drink and party", does not work.

And in a "serious"(that is one doing a quest) type game, how often is it acceptable for a player to derail that quest or refuse to play. The group raids the wizards tower and has to fight a guardian monster, but player Bob says "I ignore and abandon the group to go drink and party".

Yes, I knowTHIS did not happen in your one specific example.....I'm asking what if it DID in any other game except yours.

This come back to what i said, I flaw needs to have real game effects. A player that has their dwarf character love to "role play drinking" when the game is light and fun is not much of a flaw. A player that has their dwarf character unable to buy a magic axe as they spent all their gold on drink, is a major flaw.

And a lot of games, like D&D, would have problems with say a 10th level dwarf fighter that solid his magic arms and armor to buy drinks. THIS would be some awesome RP, in my type of game. But most other games would have a problem with the high level dwarf with just mundane arms and armor.

Flaws are just like any other part of a characters personality: the player decides when, how and if it "suddenly" happens. And most players will only do it for their personal version of fun, but few will ever do it when it might harm or negatively effect their character.

[Tanarii]

In Fate you can't choose exactly when it goes off, it goes off when it would apply. Now it is very narrative based and you could try to argue it applies only when you want it to, narrative lawyering or something. That's exactly what it sounded like it would introduce to me. I don't know the game or the mechanic, so I don't even know if that's reasonably possible. But it seems like what it would encourage. Choosing to invoke it, then justifying it. Or chose not to and justify that (if necessary).

IIRC in Torchbearer it's more explicitly the case that you choose when to invoke the negative and then justify it.

And yeah, I personally recall Blades in he Dark's Vice system as being a recovery mechanic, not a gameplay modifying flaws mechanic.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

They seem very abusable, just in game play as opposed at creation. Take a negative on less important rolls, in order to gain a bonus saved for later more important rolls or even buy character advances. Crane's Torchbearer for example has that kind of system.
The big difference is that this system requires you to manifest the flaws during play, whereas the "take flaws at character creation that will never be relevant or show up" minmaxing is about avoiding the flaws ever showing up.

Which means that you wind up pushing the flaws to the forefront of play, and you do it during rolls that aren't critically important. To me that's a win-win.

[Kane0]

Powergamers, roll-players, rules-lawyers, system experts, whatever you want to call them, the sort of player that cares more for mechanics over most or anything else will view and evaluate things through the lens of mechanics. If something has no mechanical benefit it is of no consequence, if it is a mechanical detriment then it is to be avoided or leveraged. Anything that can be leveraged to provide a mechanical benefit they care about will be.

Personally, I think your change is fine. I would prefer a flaw that gives a prepackaged bonus and penalty rather that free points to spend elsewhere. It reduces the minmax effect and shows me exactly what sort of flaws you want to see in your game.

[Anonymouswizard]

The big difference is that this system requires you to manifest the flaws during play, whereas the "take flaws at character creation that will never be relevant or show up" minmaxing is about avoiding the flaws ever showing up.

Which means that you wind up pushing the flaws to the forefront of play, and you do it during rolls that aren't critically important. To me that's a win-win.

I'm in agreement. I've been in two M&M campaigns, one where the GM only practicai gave out Hero Points for doing between session work (due to heavy railroading) and one where complications were brought up by everybody and people actually spent Hero Points as you tended to have three to five in a four hour session instead of one.

Interestingly in the first game everybody had a secret identity but it never came up, in the second nobody took that Complication and it essentially became a plot element (my first character had 'causes collateral damage' and spent the beginning of summer sessions in court defending his actions).

The lack of flaws showing up in party made it less fun, because nobody actually spent the 'be cool' points. In the second game we took and caused setbacks, but when we finally confronted the villain we had amazing punches. It felt more dynamic, more controllable, and more fun.

[Vahnavoi]

I'm not sure your examples count as flaws. If the players and GM think being drunk is so cool, then that just alters the game reality to be that as well. Everyone has a great time with the characters just being drunk. That is at least part of the whole game. And everyone agrees and everyone is happy.

Of course they count as flaws. Everyone and their mother agrees that letting your thirst for alcohol make you take life threatening decisions is a flaw. Nobody reading non-game fiction or a news article of behaviors such as these would argue that they're good decisions. Nobody would argue characters engaging in these behaviors are flawless, not even their players. The fact that they thought it'd be cool or had a fun game regardless doesn't make them not flaws - that's why other systems, like Fate or Blades of the Dark or Mutants and Masterminds have flaws. That's what they're trying to achieve. Again: the complex incentive systems of such games exist to mimic a fraction of the power that the cultural assumption has on my players. They exist to bribe other players to do what my players do anyway.


Though, like i said, it is still the players picking and choosing when the flaw happens, though also with the GM on thier side it does not matter much. If the group was doing a typical adventure type quest common in most RPGs, and suddenly the players wanted to derail the quest and not do it at all and said "Our characters go out and drink and party", and the GM though that was a great idea to, then the whole rest of the game would be "party night drinking". Nothing wrong here.


I did name the system I use, you know. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is an OSR game. Mechanically, it works like old versions of D&D. It has wealth. It has experience points. And even though they frequently make mockery of the whole concept, even the published modules have an identifiable mission structure: there's a place you are trying to explore. There's a treasure you're trying to get. There's a threat you are trying to survive.

In the simplest terms, the game keeps score, and it's possible to tell when player actions are keeping them from scoring. The players know this.

At no point do I, as a GM, have to think any of their behaviors are a "great idea". I don't need to be "on their side". I only need to allow it. The fact that I allow flawed decisions leading to a loss does not in any way allow for the conclusions that the decisions are not flawed.


It does not work in most RPGs, where the characters do a quest or mission. To have a character say "I ignore and abandon the group to go drink and party", does not work.

It does not need to work and there are in-game penalties for such decisions that don't work; that's how you can tell they are flawed decisions. Oh, but I'm getting ahead of myself - you are talking of games where players are not or at least feel they are not allowed to make decisions that do not work.


And in a "serious"(that is one doing a quest) type game, how often is it acceptable for a player to derail that quest or refuse to play. The group raids the wizards tower and has to fight a guardian monster, but player Bob says "I ignore and abandon the group to go drink and party".

Doing or not doing a quest has nothing to do with it; the relevant question is if the players are allowed to fail. "How often?" is the wrong question - I'm talking about game design and why some rules are as they are. The people who think Bob's actions would be unacceptable are victims of prior game design and their own metagame of it - they already take for granted some of the very things I'm questioning!


Yes, I knowTHIS did not happen in your one specific example.....I'm asking what if it DID in any other game except yours.

In a game I'd be a player in? I'd have my character say to Bob's character "fine, have it your way" and then plot to stab Bob's character in the back while he's not present, depending on how petty I'd be feeling. :smalltongue:

In a game that wouldn't involve me? I'd ask a series of questions from whoever brings it up, starting with "Do you need Bob's character?". If the answer is "No", then let Bob do whatever. If the answer is "yes", then "Can you replace Bob's character?". If the answer is "yes", well there's your solution. If "no", then "Can you bribe, seduce, coerce, threaten or otherwise make Bob's character change their mind?". If the answer is "yes", well there's your solution. If the answer is "no", then "is there another road you can take that doesn't require Bob's character?". If "yes", well there's your solution. If "no", then "are you willing to risk it without Bob's character?". If "yes", then let Bob do whatever. If "no", then go enjoy a night of drunken revelry with Bob's character and ask the game master to skip to the next day, then start over. Come to think of it, I'd likely do this if I was a player in the game too.


This come back to what i said, I flaw needs to have real game effects. A player that has their dwarf character love to "role play drinking" when the game is light and fun is not much of a flaw. A player that has their dwarf character unable to buy a magic axe as they spent all their gold on drink, is a major flaw.

[...]

Flaws are just like any other part of a characters personality: the player decides when, how and if it "suddenly" happens. And most players will only do it for their personal version of fun, but few will ever do it when it might harm or negatively effect their character

Flawed decisions in a game naturally lead to real game effects. If the player's choice to drink leads to stacking penalties due to poison, that's a real game effect. If it leads to their character getting left behind and lost in the dark, that's a real game effect. This is where you reveal your argument boils down to a big exercise of begging the question. Even confronted with examples of players making decisions with severe negative consequences to their characters, you simply assume the game is "light and fun" in a way that somehow negates it - completely failing to stop to notice that the players' version of fun is what directly leads to the negative consequences.

You also, once again, missed the larger argument: that flawed players make flawed decisions; the aggregate number of player flaws that lead to flawed game decisions is big enough that you get them in nearly every group. Perfect play is rare. Characters die, get lost, fail to follow quest instructions etc. all the damn time. Players don't have perfect self-awareness and ability to predict consequences of what they themselves consider fun. They can and do make flawed decision all on their own, even if trying to play "seriously".

[Talakeal]

To clarify, my system has to forms of flaws.

Traditional flaws which provide a concrete mechanical penalty in exchange for a few extra buildings points. These allow for greater customization.

Then there are a second level of flaws called quirks which are not worth any character points and they either have effects that are equally good and bad*. Most of them provide a bonus destiny** each time they disadvantage a player (not necessarily the player who took the quirk) but cost a point of mana** if you violate them.



I'm kinda opposed to this mindset, actually. If I go through all the effort to ensure that my "verbose" trait is never disadvantageous, I don't want to be punished for that work by it never being advantageous, either :smallannoyed:

I want the GM to play the world honest, and the PCs to be Incentivized to (or, at least not deincentivized from) play smart.

Look at it this way: all the dumb mistakes your players make - do you want to *encourage* them to keep making them (and to make more) by *rewarding* them for attacking the Avatar of Hate? Do you want to discourage them from handing the encounter well by giving them less reward for doing so?

Same idea with traits. If they have an upside and a downside, the players should be free to put in the work to only her the upside, and not be punished for doing so by losing out on the reward that you would have given them for being blindsided by their flaws.

I actually love when players make foolish decisions for the sake of RP, it makes the world richer and the story more interesting.

What I don't like is when players blame other people (either me or their fellow players) for their failures, or if they fail so hard the game comes to a screeching halt; and while I think some suffering on the part of a character is interesting, outright death usually makes the story worse.

I like flaws that give a benefit for making stupid decisions though, as that tends to balance out the conflict between drama and victory. And in my system, the reward goes to the person who is hindered by the flaw rather than the flaw itself, so you can actually help your allies by screwing them over.


Now, your part about working to avoid the flaw can be read in two ways (damn communication issues :p). If you are saying you are working OOC to only take flaws which will never hinder you, then yeah, I don't really have much sympathy, that's like saying I should be allowed to cheat because loaded dice are expensive and take some skill to roll right.

But I think you are saying that you are working in game to avoid and overcome your flaws and put yourself in situations where they don't come up, and if so, I totally agree! That's just good role-playing. Like, if I have a fear of spiders, and I avoid going into the spider caves as a result, that is working as intended!


"Real people have flaws so your characters should too" is not appreciably better than "good literary characters have flaws so your character should too" and has largely the same pitfalls. Namely, by virtue of their players being flawed, majority of characters already end up flawed in actual play - there is no actual need to tack on prosaic flaws just to satisfy that condition. At best, a list of such flaws can act as suggestions for what would be interesting to play. (As far as character points go, giving points for flaws does not serve verisimilitude in any shape whatsoever, so shouldn't be considered for that reason.)

That push largely doesn't come from people who'd actually want to play disabled people as disabled people nor from people concerned with realistically modelling disabilities. Ignore them.


Yes, the idea that all of the players are roughly equally competent is a bit of a gamist conceit, even without adding flaws into the mix. Using point buy or splitting XP evenly are equally unrealistic, but we use them because they are fair. Having exceptionally competent but flawed people on the team isn't unrealistic, I am not going to kick Snake Plisken out of the party because he is missing an eye or Professor X because he can't walk, and the idea that there are no handicapped adventurers is, to me, much less realistic than the idea that parties seek out members who are of roughly equal overall competence.

Besides, the flaw rules can also be used for NPCs, monsters who lack human capabilities, or injuries and curses suffered over the course of play.


*For example, Inept, which allows you to play a character who is trained at something but always screwing up like Launchpad Mcquak or Dr. Nick, the mechanical effect of which is when you make a roll there is a 5% chance your success will go up on level, and a 5% chance it will go down one level. (My system has five degrees of success; fumble, failure, partial, success, and critical.

** My system has two forms of currency, destiny and mana. Destiny can be used to reroll a dice, while mana can be used to modify a roll or perform certain extraordinary feats.

[Tanarii]

The big difference is that this system requires you to manifest the flaws during play, whereas the "take flaws at character creation that will never be relevant or show up" minmaxing is about avoiding the flaws ever showing up.

Which means that you wind up pushing the flaws to the forefront of play, and you do it during rolls that aren't critically important. To me that's a win-win.
I wouldn't count it as much more of a win any more than the flaw "never showing up". It's still just someone taking a meaningless penalty by adding description to the action, followed by someone taking major bonus by adding description to the action. And it has the added downside it's far more abusable, since you can just make the choice with any action you think you can get away with adding the description to. And that's assuming that it even needs some kind of group consensus or GM agreement to 'get away' with it, as opposed to being purely the players choice.

[Vahnavoi]

Yes, the idea that all of the players are roughly equally competent is a bit of a gamist conceit, even without adding flaws into the mix. Using point buy or splitting XP evenly are equally unrealistic, but we use them because they are fair.

Fairness is a reason orthogonal to, even sometimes incompatible with, verisimilitude. (Really, a paraphrase of your own text, but bears repeating.) You can use one of these factors to justify things the other can't, and vice versa. So it goes to the same question as in my first post: which is more important? Pick one.


Having exceptionally competent but flawed people on the team isn't unrealistic, I am not going to kick Snake Plisken out of the party because he is missing an eye or Professor X because he can't walk, and the idea that there are no handicapped adventurers is, to me, much less realistic than the idea that parties seek out members who are of roughly equal overall competence.

Having no handicapped people in a group of experts isn't exactly unrealistic either, is it? The unrealism of "no handicapped adventurers" does not exist as a counter argument - it's a mirage created by extrapolating all adventurers from your character generation rules. But there is no need for your character creation system to be able to model every kind of adventurer, you can achieve verisimilitude with much less. The metagame reality of no group of player characters having some type of character only begins to matter if you expect to play a truly huge number of games with your system and in the same setting.

In case of a player truly wanting to play a handicapped character, go back to my last reply to Anonymouswizard.


Besides, the flaw rules can also be used for NPCs, monsters who lack human capabilities, or injuries and curses suffered over the course of play.

Vast majority of such cases are covered by one simple rule: "don't describe the NPC or monster doing anything that's not in their nature". Following just that, I've managed ten years of Lamentations of the Flame Princess without having a flaw mechanic. Leave rules symmetry to hardcore simulations and computer games. Or at least don't mix it in this discussion.


*For example, Inept, which allows you to play a character who is trained at something but always screwing up like Launchpad Mcquak or Dr. Nick, the mechanical effect of which is when you make a roll there is a 5% chance your success will go up on level, and a 5% chance it will go down one level. (My system has five degrees of success; fumble, failure, partial, success, and critical.

** My system has two forms of currency, destiny and mana. Destiny can be used to reroll a dice, while mana can be used to modify a roll or perform certain extraordinary feats.

Why do you need a special roll for "always screwing up"? Wouldn't you reach the same effect by just having less skill? If the point of that flaw is to allow playing a comic relief character, how is that not achieved equally well or better by the player just choosing to act comically in a game? This is a pretty good example of a flaw where the rationale for it even existing is questionable.

[False God]

My experience is that flaws are terribly imbalanced no matter what on purpose.

And yes, I take them to gain some additional early-game build points.

But I also take them to better flesh out my character and give the DM some hooks (I LOVE WoD's "foe" and "enemy" merits with a creative DM whom I trust).

What you have are essentially two categories. "Boring Flaws" and "Interesting Flaws". Your "Boring Flaws" (probably something like "Poor Eyesight: get a -2 on all Perception checks") are uncreative and uninteresting, they don't serve any of the RPers needs and they're too concrete for the min-maxer(though I'd argue anyone who takes Poor Eyesight could buy a pair of glasses). They give points....but their drawbacks actively counter points already invested. You're essentially trading a point of Perception (or its related stats) for a point towards merits/feats/bennies.

Long and short, with the "Boring Flaws" all you're doing is pushing the peas around. You haven't spiced up the peas or lost any peas or gained any peas or turned them into mashed potatoes.

The "Interesting Flaws" on the other hand add something new to the equation. They might interest the RPer, but it begs the question of "Why do I write this flaw down, when I can just RP this element myself?" My experience with "Interesting Flaws" is that they tend to be an excuse for the DM to reach into the Golden Box of the PC and take control over them. The DM already has control over the entire world, why should I invite him into my box? Well...the DM is offering you bennie points in exchange for this additional control.
You're not.

So the RPer has no incentive to take your Interesting Flaws, and your min/maxer has no incentive to take any flaws at all.

This is why typically flaws are not balanced. Their penalties are mild, situational, or purely RP. But their benefits are real, immediate, and concrete. Your penalties are real and immediate. While your benefits are mild, situational, or purely RP. Basically, your flaws are balanced backwards.

[Ettina]

Of course they count as flaws. Everyone and their mother agrees that letting your thirst for alcohol make you take life threatening decisions is a flaw. Nobody reading non-game fiction or a news article of behaviors such as these would argue that they're good decisions. Nobody would argue characters engaging in these behaviors are flawless, not even their players. The fact that they thought it'd be cool or had a fun game regardless doesn't make them not flaws - that's why other systems, like Fate or Blades of the Dark or Mutants and Masterminds have flaws. That's what they're trying to achieve. Again: the complex incentive systems of such games exist to mimic a fraction of the power that the cultural assumption has on my players. They exist to bribe other players to do what my players do anyway.

Being an adventurer is a flaw by that argument. Why risk your life going into the dungeons of doom all the time when you could just live a peaceful life apprenticed to the local blacksmith?

[Talakeal]

What you have are essentially two categories. "Boring Flaws" and "Interesting Flaws". Your "Boring Flaws" (probably something like "Poor Eyesight: get a -2 on all Perception checks") are uncreative and uninteresting, they don't serve any of the RPers needs and they're too concrete for the min-maxer(though I'd argue anyone who takes Poor Eyesight could buy a pair of glasses). They give points....but their drawbacks actively counter points already invested. You're essentially trading a point of Perception (or its related stats) for a point towards merits/feats/bennies.

Long and short, with the "Boring Flaws" all you're doing is pushing the peas around. You haven't spiced up the peas or lost any peas or gained any peas or turned them into mashed potatoes.

You are getting an extra layer of customization though.

You can play a guy who has good vision but poor hearing, or who has a powerful spells that go beyond his control, or someone who is small and nimble, but so precise that they can deal damage as well as a hulking brute.


The "Interesting Flaws" on the other hand add something new to the equation. They might interest the RPer, but it begs the question of "Why do I write this flaw down, when I can just RP this element myself?" My experience with "Interesting Flaws" is that they tend to be an excuse for the DM to reach into the Golden Box of the PC and take control over them. The DM already has control over the entire world, why should I invite him into my box? Well...the DM is offering you bennie points in exchange for this additional control. You're not.

I don't agree that giving the DM control of a PC is a good thing.

You write down flaws so that the game is still fair. Numerical flaws allow you to play a unique character, such as someone who is handicapped, while at the same time compensating you for them. Likewise, RP flaws compensate you for sub-optimal play.

Saying "I am a klepto I steal your treasure!" is like to get you kicked from the group and start another thread on "Just playing my character," while stealing your teammate's money an giving them a benny in exchange makes it an interesting choice and rewards the group for you RPing a kelpto rather than punishing them.


This is why typically flaws are not balanced. Their penalties are mild, situational, or purely RP. But their benefits are real, immediate, and concrete. Your penalties are real and immediate. While your benefits are mild, situational, or purely RP. Basically, your flaws are balanced backwards.

Can you elaborate on this please? I am not following, but this could be very valuable feedback if you have hit upon something I am not noticing.


Fairness is a reason orthogonal to, even sometimes incompatible with, verisimilitude. (Really, a paraphrase of your own text, but bears repeating.) You can use one of these factors to justify things the other can't, and vice versa. So it goes to the same question as in my first post: which is more important? Pick one.

I did pick one. In the particular case of starting PCs on roughly the same power level, fairness is more important than verisimilitude.



Vast majority of such cases are covered by one simple rule: "don't describe the NPC or monster doing anything that's not in their nature". Following just that, I've managed ten years of Lamentations of the Flame Princess without having a flaw mechanic. Leave rules symmetry to hardcore simulations and computer games. Or at least don't mix it in this discussion.

Is that true? The eponymous flame princess is an amputee, are their really no rules for such in the system?



snip

The gist I am getting from your post, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you think that more character options are innately bad, but I am not really grasping your rationale behind it.

[Cluedrew]

It's still just someone taking a meaningless penalty by adding description to the action, followed by someone taking major bonus by adding description to the action. [...] And that's assuming that it even needs some kind of group consensus or GM agreement to 'get away' with it, as opposed to being purely the players choice.Well it needs agreement that the connection established by the description between your aspect and the action. I think after that though it is purely a player choice when to spend points but the GM also has to agree when you gain a point with a penalty, and if they think its not interesting they can just not. So yeah, there are two levels of safety there.

There is what I call the "anti-oberan" (?) fallacy of "just because it can be broken doesn't mean it is". Although thinking back to it a better description might be "soft rules are still rules". In that the numbers don't actually say when exactly the effect happens and some people argue that that means it is whenever you say it is. No, there is a rule "when appropriate given the fiction" and that does take some interpretation (hence soft) but you can still break it. If you are going "this is an important role so I am going to come up with a tenuous connection in a desperate attempt to get a +2 bonus" that's breaking the rules as much as going "this is an important so I am going have it provide a +4 bonus instead of the usual +2".

Now on the other hand if you are in a group that has a lot of trouble with soft rules - and from your responses you might - then fair enough, don't rely on soft rules to hold your game together. For me they don't take much more effort to get right and can more than make up for it with flexibility and nuisance as compared to hard rules. But I can easily see how that doesn't apply to everybody.

[False God]

You are getting an extra layer of customization though.

You can play a guy who has good vision but poor hearing, or who has a powerful spells that go beyond his control, or someone who is small and nimble, but so precise that they can deal damage as well as a hulking brute.
As addressed further down, I can just tell you my character has poor eyesight, or that they're absent-minded, and so on provided it's restricted to my character. Maybe they forget the occasional word to the spell, this doesn't need numbers, this just need me, the player, engaging in believable role-play and the party/DM being okay with me sometimes not doing my job (casting spells presumably) or sometimes not even making perception checks (to my own detriment certainly and potentially theirs), in order to create a fun and enjoyable character.

TLDR: I don't need Flaws (capital F) to have a flawed character.


I don't agree that giving the DM control of a PC is a good thing.
But there are degrees of control. Saying my character is scared of spiders means I, the player, get to make those decisions. Writing down the Flaw, "Scared of Spiders" means you, the DM, get to determine when a spider triggers my character's phobia.

Sometimes this can be enjoyable. It can hook a character and a player better into the scene. Sometimes it can be annoying and tedious, it depends HIGHLY on how the DM handles flaws and how the player role-plays them.


You write down flaws so that the game is still fair.
Is the game unfair if I don't write down flaws? It is unfair that Bob may take 2 flaws, but I only took 1, and Sue 3? Am I the living incarnation of the Ubermensch if I don't write down any flaws? No! Of course not, that's silly. Good role-play of a good character means you're playing someone who has good and bad qualities (maybe more of one than the other!), "Flaws" as a game mechanic only exist to reinforce that role-play by providing concrete benefits.

I'll repeat what I said above: I don't need the DM's approval to role-play a flawed character. I just do.


Numerical flaws allow you to play a unique character, such as someone who is handicapped, while at the same time compensating you for them. Likewise, RP flaws compensate you for sub-optimal play.
But your RP flaws compensate noone. And I can play a character with a gimp leg all day long without the flaw for it.


Saying "I am a klepto I steal your treasure!" is like to get you kicked from the group and start another thread on "Just playing my character," while stealing your teammate's money an giving them a benny in exchange makes it an interesting choice and rewards the group for you RPing a kelpto rather than punishing them.
No. You are conflating two things that do not necessarily connect.
First: Playing a "klepto".
Second: Stealing from the party.
Further, we've gone from my example "Poor Eyesight" to "serious mental condition" over the course of a few lines.

For starters, I generally advise against playing mental disabilities, for exactly this reason. Most people play them poorly and use them as an excuse to be a jerk to the party. It is not fun or enjoyable play, and I would happily kick them from the party for this behaviour. The fact that DM approved the "Flaw: Klepto" doesn't make it better, it makes it worse. Because now the player, instead of being bound by table etiquette to behave properly, has been given DM authority to misbehave. Being a pure roleplay choice and being a flaw doesn't change your end-result here, and the pittance of points most games give out for flaws does not compensate the table for the long-term detrimental behaviour that has been authorized.

Second, this flaw (RP or otherwise) can work provided the player practices proper table etiquitte, that is: stealing from those in a manner that does not directly impact party/group cohesion and goals, and also creates interesting situations. "OH, I slipped a jade statue from that temple a hundred miles ago." can create interesting events from the group. "Oh, I slipped that jade statue from Susie because I felt like it." does not.


Can you elaborate on this please? I am not following, but this could be very valuable feedback if you have hit upon something I am not noticing.
I don't know what your specific flaws are, so preface that I'm going from experience from other games.
In 3.5 D&D, the "poor eyesight" flaw gives a -2 to spot checks. Not a terrible punishment in exchange for a free feat, which, depending on your class, could open up some real powerful early game options. It really helps with Shock Trooper build, for example. In another game I have a DM who runs "system shock checks" for every time you take 25% or more of your health in a single hit. Which at low levels is like every hit, but I can take two minor flaws like "Love of Nature": DC 12 will save to attack a plant or animal, even a hostile one (one of my favorite flaws, good role-play there too) and say, "Inattentive" -2 on initiative and spot checks; and get Diehard and Shock resistant, which means I don't have to make those checks anymore.

The penalties of my flaws are minor. Especially on the right character (a high dex and wis build, maybe a druid or a psi/monk) are impactful at lower levels, but still easily built around, and they give me some VERY useful early-game feats, especially for feat-heavy character builds.

WoD on the other hand has some more flexible flaws, but their impact is still very minor. I could take a couple 1 point flaws (a minor Phobia, a minor allergy) or a big one (enemy, foe, etc...). The former flaws are manageable, but give me some good early-game extra points, maybe to max out a fighting style or bump up my Resources merit. The gains I get are MUCH greater than the costs.

For the latter, a Foe or an Enemy can be an intermittent challenge, and gives them DM a new way to engage my character and the party. In exchange for an often substantial amount of points (they go up to 5 each), I get an intermittent challenge who, with the help of the party, I may defeat, and then lose the flaw and have a bunch of free points! Or we can just attempt to not engage when they appear! Running away is a valid strategy! They can also add interesting elements to the game (which I find beneficial, but doesn't sound like your players do).

But in all of these situations: the drawbacks when minor are easily manageable, and give you very valuable early-game points. When they are severe, they are intermittent, but offer a LOT of early game rewards.

As far as I can tell, your feats are "balanced". It's 1 for 1 and your roleplay feats are 1 for 0. Flaws are not balanced and they're not meant to be. Their goal is to reinforce roleplay (which as above a good roleplayer doesn't need), and give the DM some hooks to be creative and make things more interesting. 1 for 1 trades or worse 1 for 0 trades are a waste of time, and so yeah, people aren't going to take them.

[Talakeal]

As addressed further down, I can just tell you my character has poor eyesight, or that they're absent-minded, and so on provided it's restricted to my character. Maybe they forget the occasional word to the spell, this doesn't need numbers, this just need me, the player, engaging in believable role-play and the party/DM being okay with me sometimes not doing my job (casting spells presumably) or sometimes not even making perception checks (to my own detriment certainly and potentially theirs), in order to create a fun and enjoyable character.

TLDR: I don't need Flaws (capital F) to have a flawed character.

I agree, you can just RP flaws, and if you are running a rules light game that is probably the way to go. But, the same argument can also be applied to virtually any aspect of the system, not just flaws. You could, as an extreme example, get rid of classes and just tell the players not to cast spells if they are RPing a fighter or not use weapons if they are RPing a wizard.

I personally prefer a crunchier game where there is more of a connection between setting and rules. For flaws in particular, because I don't like the temptation of being able to just turn them off when they become inconvenient, and partially because I don't trust the other players not to step on my toes.



Is the game unfair if I don't write down flaws? It is unfair that Bob may take 2 flaws, but I only took 1, and Sue 3? Am I the living incarnation of the Ubermensch if I don't write down any flaws? No! Of course not, that's silly. Good role-play of a good character means you're playing someone who has good and bad qualities (maybe more of one than the other!), "Flaws" as a game mechanic only exist to reinforce that role-play by providing concrete benefits.

Yes, that is literally the definition of unfair.

Just because you chose to have an advantage / disadvantage doesn't mean it is fair.


I'll repeat what I said above: I don't need the DM's approval to role-play a flawed character. I just do.

That's great for you, I wish I had that luxury.

I have been attacked by my party members and actually kicked out of groups on multiple occasions for RPing flaws.

And I am not talking about doing things that harm the rest of the party either, merely about stuff that didn't help them. For example, I was kicked out of a group for playing a heal-bot cleric who had taken a vow of nonviolence for playing a "useless" character, I am pretty sure that if I had gotten a noticeable numerical boost to my heals for said flaw, they wouldn't have even missed the occasional mace attack.



But your RP flaws compensate noone.

When you say "your" RP flaws, are you talking about me specifically?

Because you are the one talking about RP flaws that don't provide compensation.

I am saying that in my system "flaws" have concrete numerical effects, while things that would traditionally be "RP flaws" (meaning those that only affect behavior) have been lumped in with quirks; traits that have both good and bad sides built into them.




No. You are conflating two things that do not necessarily connect.
First: Playing a "klepto".
Second: Stealing from the party.

Further, we've gone from my example "Poor Eyesight" to "serious mental condition" over the course of a few lines.

For starters, I generally advise against playing mental disabilities, for exactly this reason. Most people play them poorly and use them as an excuse to be a jerk to the party. It is not fun or enjoyable play, and I would happily kick them from the party for this behaviour. The fact that DM approved the "Flaw: Klepto" doesn't make it better, it makes it worse. Because now the player, instead of being bound by table etiquette to behave properly, has been given DM authority to misbehave. Being a pure roleplay choice and being a flaw doesn't change your end-result here, and the pittance of points most games give out for flaws does not compensate the table for the long-term detrimental behaviour that has been authorized.

Second, this flaw (RP or otherwise) can work provided the player practices proper table etiquitte, that is: stealing from those in a manner that does not directly impact party/group cohesion and goals, and also creates interesting situations. "OH, I slipped a jade statue from that temple a hundred miles ago." can create interesting events from the group. "Oh, I slipped that jade statue from Susie because I felt like it." does not.


I did transition from numerical flaws to behavior flaws in going from one section to the next.

I chose kleptomania because it is a serious behavior flaw that is likely to cause bad blood in the party, I intentionally chose a more extreme example in an attempt to make my point stand out more.

I agree, you should still work out conflict-laden flaws with the rest of the table, but I think that having mechanical compensation for the other players to sweeten the deal will make it a much more pleasant interaction for everyone involved.



I don't know what your specific flaws are, so preface that I'm going from experience from other games.
In 3.5 D&D, the "poor eyesight" flaw gives a -2 to spot checks. Not a terrible punishment in exchange for a free feat, which, depending on your class, could open up some real powerful early game options. It really helps with Shock Trooper build, for example. In another game I have a DM who runs "system shock checks" for every time you take 25% or more of your health in a single hit. Which at low levels is like every hit, but I can take two minor flaws like "Love of Nature": DC 12 will save to attack a plant or animal, even a hostile one (one of my favorite flaws, good role-play there too) and say, "Inattentive" -2 on initiative and spot checks; and get Diehard and Shock resistant, which means I don't have to make those checks anymore.

Where are you getting these 3.5 flaws from? The only d20 flaws I recall were from Unearthed Arcana, and they were both very severe and applied to pretty universal aspects of the character which were hard to bypass; https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm

Now, I am sure in a game with as many moving parts as 3.5 it is possible to circumvent them for a pure benefit, but it is not nearly as straightforward as it seems.


WoD on the other hand has some more flexible flaws, but their impact is still very minor. I could take a couple 1 point flaws (a minor Phobia, a minor allergy) or a big one (enemy, foe, etc...). The former flaws are manageable, but give me some good early-game extra points, maybe to max out a fighting style or bump up my Resources merit. The gains I get are MUCH greater than the costs.

For the latter, a Foe or an Enemy can be an intermittent challenge, and gives them DM a new way to engage my character and the party. In exchange for an often substantial amount of points (they go up to 5 each), I get an intermittent challenge who, with the help of the party, I may defeat, and then lose the flaw and have a bunch of free points! Or we can just attempt to not engage when they appear! Running away is a valid strategy! They can also add interesting elements to the game (which I find beneficial, but doesn't sound like your players do).

But in all of these situations: the drawbacks when minor are easily manageable, and give you very valuable early-game points. When they are severe, they are intermittent, but offer a LOT of early game rewards.

As far as I can tell, your feats are "balanced". It's 1 for 1 and your roleplay feats are 1 for 0. Flaws are not balanced and they're not meant to be. Their goal is to reinforce role-play (which as above a good role-player doesn't need), and give the DM some hooks to be creative and make things more interesting. 1 for 1 trades or worse 1 for 0 trades are a waste of time, and so yeah, people aren't going to take them.

So, I guess that's a roundabout way of saying you agree with my play-tester then?

From the looks of the thread so far and my previous play-tester pool, it seems more like certain styles of player, likely those who would avoid my system in the first place, are likely to ignore flaws, but they appeal to enough people that they don't seem to be wasted space.

[Vahnavoi]

Being an adventurer is a flaw by that argument. Why risk your life going into the dungeons of doom all the time when you could just live a peaceful life apprenticed to the local blacksmith?

Funny you should say that - in Lamentations of the Flame Princess, that argument is made in the rule books. :smallamused: Because, let's face it, it is true, and the fact that it's true is at the core I've been saying. Real people - the players at the table - frequently suck at calculating risks. So in any adventure game where there is real risk of losing - losing their character, losing the fight, losing the treasure, in short, losing the game - they can and do lose all the damn time because they take stupid risks.

So let me ask you a question. Presume you want interesting, flawed adventurers. If you can recognize risking your life for fortune and glory by going on the adventure as flawed in itself - why would you need to tack on additional flaws? (For the record, I already answered that question myself, in my first post. It's not a rhetorical question.)

---



I did pick one. In the particular case of starting PCs on roughly the same power level, fairness is more important than verisimilitude.

Then stop worrying about absence of handicapped people. Handicaps by nature are not fair.


Is that true? The eponymous flame princess is an amputee, are their really no rules for such in the system?

You can check the basic rules yourself on the game's website. No, the core rules have no system for flaws or permanent injuries, outside of permanent loss of ability points and hit points due to old age. Individual modules may posit exceptions, but those are one-off rules for particular cases (such as the monster in Death Love Doom), the kind any game master can craft on a moment's notice should they so desire.

As you have correctly noticed from the art, this in no way prevents description of injured characters in the game. What you didn't notice - understandable, as it's not visible unless you own a whole bunch of supplements from a decade of publishing - is that the injured state of the Princess is a progression in the art. There are images where she still has both legs and all fingers. There is an image where she loses that leg and those fingers. There's are where she's gruesomely killed by the title character of a supplement. Her wounded state models her adventures, they are examples of all the bad things a character could be subjected to during games. In that respect, they are perfectly accurate. :smallamused:


The gist I am getting from your post, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you think that more character options are innately bad, but I am not really grasping your rationale behind it.

That's a garbage take on what I've said in this thread.

[False God]

I agree, you can just RP flaws, and if you are running a rules light game that is probably the way to go. But, the same argument can also be applied to virtually any aspect of the system, not just flaws. You could, as an extreme example, get rid of classes and just tell the players not to cast spells if they are RPing a fighter or not use weapons if they are RPing a wizard.

I personally prefer a crunchier game where there is more of a connection between setting and rules. For flaws in particular, because I don't like the temptation of being able to just turn them off when they become inconvenient, and partially because I don't trust the other players not to step on my toes.
And they too, don't trust you not to step on theirs.


Yes, that is literally the definition of unfair.

Just because you chose to have an advantage / disadvantage doesn't mean it is fair.
Then your game is broken. If flaws are not required, ie: an optional ruleset designed only to give some additional bennies and allow the Dm to reinforce certain rolplay, then it is entirely within my purview as the player to take them or not. Just as I can choose not to take a feat if I don't want it, or not take a certain class if I don't want it.(though presumably I have to take at least one class to play the game, that's required).

Not utilizing an optional ruleset should never been seen as "unfair". It's your system right? You made flaws optional right? So why is it unfair for me to not take part in an optional sub-system you said I don't have to?



That's great for you, I wish I had that luxury.

I have been attacked by my party members and actually kicked out of groups on multiple occasions for RPing flaws.

And I am not talking about doing things that harm the rest of the party either, merely about stuff that didn't help them. For example, I was kicked out of a group for playing a heal-bot cleric who had taken a vow of nonviolence for playing a "useless" character, I am pretty sure that if I had gotten a noticeable numerical boost to my heals for said flaw, they wouldn't have even missed the occasional mace attack.
Such are the costs sometimes of playing what you want to play. I can't control other people. Neither can you. So don't bother. Play the character you want to play, practice good behaviour, and if they still kick you out, that's on them.



When you say "your" RP flaws, are you talking about me specifically?

Because you are the one talking about RP flaws that don't provide compensation.

I am saying that in my system "flaws" have concrete numerical effects, while things that would traditionally be "RP flaws" (meaning those that only affect behavior) have been lumped in with quirks; traits that have both good and bad sides built into them.
So then all your flaws are simply pushing peas around. All flaws have good and bad sides to them. "Poor Eyesight" may mean I miss some details about hidden enemies....but it might also mean I don't see the Eldritch Horror clearly enough to go insane. A Love of Nature may mean I'm not going to attack this wolf attacking us, but it might also mean I'm not going to attack this wolf that did nothing when the rest of the party just wants some more XP. The loss of a party member (by sitting out) may make some players/characters rethink their approach of just charging in head first.

Or it might get me kicked from the group.

You have to be able to accept that sometimes the results of your RP, even good RP, will not fall in your favor.

To quote Picard: "It is possible to commit no mistakes, and still lose."




Where are you getting these 3.5 flaws from? The only d20 flaws I recall were from Unearthed Arcana, and they were both very severe and applied to pretty universal aspects of the character which were hard to bypass; https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm

Now, I am sure in a game with as many moving parts as 3.5 it is possible to circumvent them for a pure benefit, but it is not nearly as straightforward as it seems.
I go off this list here: http://eberronunlimited.wikidot.com/flaws
Sources: Unearthed arcana, Complete Dragon Magazine 3.5 Feats, Flaws, & Styles – Flaws

Of the "Core" flaws, Frail is easy (high Con score, oh well it's basically a -2 to Con that only applies to 1/3 things Con affects (Fort saves and skill checks are unaffected). "Murky Eyed" is another easy one, just...don't attack enemies with concealment. (A support-caster can utilize summons or buff allies and never once attack a concealed enemy). I could go on, but I've built around a good 2/3rds of these flaws. Their impact is very minor, and often WELL worth the trade for a feat.



So, I guess that's a roundabout way of saying you agree with my play-tester then?

From the looks of the thread so far and my previous play-tester pool, it seems more like certain styles of player, likely those who would avoid my system in the first place, are likely to ignore flaws, but they appeal to enough people that they don't seem to be wasted space.
Yes, but I like flaws, don't get me wrong. I just don't think yours are balanced properly.

Ultimately it boils down to this: I can roleplay almost any flaw any game could come up with. The real "cost" of a flaw is the DM being able to say "This is how your character acts because of this flaw." so the benefit to the player, for the giving up of control is "in-game mechanical benefits".

It's not an in-game exchange. It's a trade between player and DM. The DM gains some control he normally wouldn't, and the player gets to make a more powerful character than normal. If the exchange is balanced in game then the player is inherently losing out, as their character is not becoming more powerful from the exchange, but the player is still losing some element of control. And with how little control the player already has (their character) every inch they give up is precious.

[Talakeal]

Such are the costs sometimes of playing what you want to play. I can't control other people. Neither can you. So don't bother. Play the character you want to play, practice good behaviour, and if they still kick you out, that's on them.

Or it might get me kicked from the group.

Or we could play a system where everyone is happy and nobody has to get kicked out of the group.


So then all your flaws are simply pushing peas around. All flaws have good and bad sides to them. "Poor Eyesight" may mean I miss some details about hidden enemies....but it might also mean I don't see the Eldritch Horror clearly enough to go insane. A Love of Nature may mean I'm not going to attack this wolf attacking us, but it might also mean I'm not going to attack this wolf that did nothing when the rest of the party just wants some more XP. The loss of a party member (by sitting out) may make some players/characters rethink their approach of just charging in head first.

You have to be able to accept that sometimes the results of your RP, even good RP, will not fall in your favor.

To quote Picard: "It is possible to commit no mistakes, and still lose."

Yes, but I like flaws, don't get me wrong. I just don't think yours are balanced properly.

Ok, so serious question, when you say "balanced properly" does that mean unbalanced?

Because the only way I can reconcile these statements in my mind is if you are making some sort "ivory tower game design" argument where equal trade offs are undesirable and some options are just flat out better than others to reward system mastery or attract munchkins.

Please explain?

False God, Vahnavoi, could you do me a favor and explain to me why the logic you are applying to flaws doesn't also apply to point buy ability scores (or indeed most aspects of a traditional RPG)?


Not utilizing an optional ruleset should never been seen as "unfair". It's your system right? You made flaws optional right? So why is it unfair for me to not take part in an optional sub-system you said I don't have to?

I think we had a miscommunication somewhere.

I was saying that in your ideal system where players did not receive any form of compensation for their flaws, flaws are by definition unfair as they hinder you with nothing in return, thereby putting them at a disadvantage.


Then stop worrying about absence of handicapped people. Handicaps by nature are not fair.

But games are fair, and the purpose of this game is to create robust characters.

The idea that you should be forbidden to play a handicapped character or that you must be at a mechanical disadvantage for doing so arbitrarily controlling at best and outright hateful at worst.



That's a garbage take on what I've said in this thread.

Part of my request for correction was to explain what I was misunderstanding, not merely to call it garbage and move on :smallbiggrin:

But, on a more serious note, if, to use an example, someone wants to play a guy who has terrible eyesight and has learned to rely on his earring, and therefore receives a +2 bonus to listen and a -2 penalty to spot, why begrudge him that? How does the existence of such an option hurt the game for anyone else in any way?

[Anonymouswizard]

While I love picking flaws for my characters, I'm not going to play a game that doesn't have them. I'm just going to make up how my character is flawed and play it that way.

Here's another weird thought, giving points for disadvantages can be insulting. I have autism, dyspraxia, and bad eyesight (oh, and a BMI that is far too high), do I need to get extra points in real life to make up for that?

Giving points for such issues is in some ways saying that characters with those issues need to be better in other areas to be worthwhile. This is better when it's a consequence of assigning points everybody gets: I'm clumsy, have a lower DEX and therefore more points to spend elsewhere. It's much worse when you have a flaw clumsy that says you get bonus points for taking it.

Serious question, do you think a player who wants to play a clumsy swashbuckler would be put off by not getting extra points? Or would it just be the hanger who wants extra points for their swashbuckler and thinks clumsy won't harm them too much?

Or more realistically for the second player an ugly, illiterate, alcoholic swashbuckler with a gambling problem.

Side note: this thread has made me realise how much I want to play a dyspraxic swordsman.

[False God]

Or we could play a system where everyone is happy and nobody has to get kicked out of the group.
Such a system does not exist.

Gonna skip ahead here...


I think we had a miscommunication somewhere.

I was saying that in your ideal system where players did not receive any form of compensation for their flaws, flaws are by definition unfair as they hinder you with nothing in return, thereby putting them at a disadvantage.

We must have, because that's not what I wrote. Like, at all.

[Talakeal]

Such a system does not exist.

I have literally never had a problem like that arise in a system which had a flaw to cover the problematic behavior.

I can think of half a dozen times a game of dungeons and dragons has come to a crashing halt over someone RPing a character flaw; I can’t think of any in the various World of Darkness games, and I play those a lot more.

Of course, the different player groups and the mentality people approach the game with might also be a part of it.

And then, both can be true, as printing flaws in the book might calibrate peoples expectations of what sort of character is appropriate for the game.

[Anonymouswizard]

Such a system does not exist.

For every group ever, sure.

For an individual group, maybe.

My university group had a case of the GM loving crunchy games that try to stimulate characters, his wife far preferring simpler games, me being somewhere in the middle but preferring narrative simulation. While we never found a perfect system we did manage to compromise like adults, and after our game of Mutants & Masterminds I think Ubiquity might have gone down really well.

I've occasionally been the only person in a group who's perfect system isn't D&D . Which is annoying but understandable.

[Vahnavoi]

False God, Vahnavoi, could you do me a favor and explain to me why the logic you are applying to flaws doesn't also apply to point buy ability scores (or indeed most aspects of a traditional RPG)?

How about you try to understand what the logic is before asking how it applies to yet another subject?


But games are fair, and the purpose of this game is to create robust characters.

The idea that you should be forbidden to play a handicapped character or that you must be at a mechanical disadvantage for doing so arbitrarily controlling at best and outright hateful at worst.

Games are not by any general rule "fair". Making a game fair is a design choice, takes effort to achieve and depending on complexity of a game may not even be easy to define or achieve.

Handicaps are by their nature unfair. Handicap is literally another word for disadvantage - so when you're talking of modeling handicaps without mechanical disadvantages, you are pursuing an oxymoronic goal. You are talking of unfair fairness. The simplest way to have a fair game is to not have handicaps - period. If you cannot stomach not having nominally handicapped characters, then just say that those handicaps have no mechanical effect - don't waste everyone's time trying to make mechanics for something that isn't supposed to matter! No, it's not realistic, but you wanted to be fair, not realistic.


Part of my request for correction was to explain what I was misunderstanding, not merely to call it garbage and move on.

There was nothing to clarify in that part of your response - it was a complete non-sequitur given what I wrote.


But, on a more serious note, if, to use an example, someone wants to play a guy who has terrible eyesight and has learned to rely on his earring, and therefore receives a +2 bonus to listen and a -2 penalty to spot, why begrudge him that? How does the existence of such an option hurt the game for anyone else in any way?

Nobody is begrudging any player for that; I'm questioning whether that kind of game design makes sense from the get go. It's the game designer who is wasting everyone's time.

[Talakeal]

How about you try to understand what the logic is before asking how it applies to yet another subject?

Trying, I really am, I have read your posts multiple times at this point, but I am having difficulty finding a single argument against flaws where I can't make a 1 to 1 comparison in complaining about a character being able to drop their strength score and buying up another attribute as a result.


Nobody is begrudging any player for that; I'm questioning whether that kind of game design makes sense from the get go. It's the game designer who is wasting everyone's time.

Well, I can tell you that I have been enjoying games which do allow that level of customization far more than one's which don't since the mid 90s, and I have never played with anyone who made it known that they thought they were a waste of time.

[Max_Killjoy]

I used to be OK with systems that give character creation or improvement resources for taking or playing out flaws.

I've come to view them as a temptation to game the system, and something that's forced on players if they want to "keep up" with other players.

For example, oWoD games allowed the player to take up to 7 points "worth" of Flaws for the PC, to increase what they had in Freebie Points for customization at character creation. But that just meant that most of time, players were scrounging for low-impact Flaws to get those points and not be behind the curve.

Or as much as I love the HERO system overall, the weight that Disadvantages were given in character creation means that any player NOT taking the full amount possible is in an impossible hole at least on the mechanical side of characters (to the point that most GMs required taking the full point value in Disads just to keep things from being unbalanced).

[Talakeal]

I used to be OK with systems that give character creation or improvement resources for taking or playing out flaws.

I've come to view them as a temptation to game the system, and something that's forced on players if they want to "keep up" with other players.

For example, oWoD games allowed the player to take up to 7 points "worth" of Flaws for the PC, to increase what they had in Freebie Points for customization at character creation. But that just meant that most of time, players were scrounging for low-impact Flaws to get those points and not be behind the curve.

Or as much as I love the HERO system overall, the weight that Disadvantages were given in character creation means that any player NOT taking the full amount possible is in an impossible hole at least on the mechanical side of characters (to the point that most GMs required taking the full point value in Disads just to keep things from being unbalanced).

Which I think is also what my player was doing, hence his puzzlement at why anyone would ever take a flaw that would actually come into play.

[Satinavian]

He was undoubtedly upset that he was no longer able to game the system for free points. But he also said that most players would feel the same way, so I was effectively removing flaws from the game as they are now just wasted space that will never get used.
I would say that most players would like your change, at least more experienced players.

Build points for pure roleplaying is not a good design and while some might want to exploit it, most would prefer a more balanced and reliable approach.

Of course some players feel they don't get enough build points to build interesting characters and have to rely on exploits. But those cases are better adressed by discussing basic build points instead of discussing loopholes.

That said, flaws with mechanical consequences are fine. But seems you are keeping those anyway.



Personally i dislike flaws for metacurrency dynamics. It is extra bookkeeping and results in strategies about farming flaws. A small bonus/malus for acting in accordance/against a character trait is far preferable. It makes the action relevant to the trait stand on itself.

But keep in mind that your new system does make PCs stronger. Getting a bonus when acting in character and a malus when acting against should result in way more bonus situations than malus situations for every reasonably portrayed character.

[Quertus]

Let's say that I give my character traits and flaws around "the human form is perfect; other stuff is just weird". So "-2 to hit anything with 6+ legs, +1 to hit anything with 2 legs", "-2 to hit anything with tentacles, +1 to hit anything with 2 arms", "won't accept grafts / piercings / tattoos / other body modifications", "hatred: Mutants".

If the party learns that Mirkwood is infested with spiders, and I convince the party not to go there, should we encounter fewer humanoid opponents as a result, to balance how much my trait disadvantaged me?

If the module had called for us allying with a group of Mutants, and, instead, we slaughter them all, and add their corpses to the Necromancer's army of Undead, is the group going to be any less unhappy if that kills the campaign?

[Satinavian]

Let's say that I give my character traits and flaws around "the human form is perfect; other stuff is just weird". So "-2 to hit anything with 6+ legs, +1 to hit anything with 2 legs", "-2 to hit anything with tentacles, +1 to hit anything with 2 arms", "won't accept grafts / piercings / tattoos / other body modifications", "hatred: Mutants".

If the party learns that Mirkwood is infested with spiders, and I convince the party not to go there, should we encounter fewer humanoid opponents as a result, to balance how much my trait disadvantaged me?Whether such a flaw is allowed is decided when the campaign is decided. In the campaign, avoidong stuff that PCs and doing stuff they are good with are bad at is a reasonable and valid action. But it usually comes with its own cost like extra effort to find other ways or missing out on treasure or other rewards.

If the module had called for us allying with a group of Mutants, and, instead, we slaughter them all, and add their corpses to the Necromancer's army of Undead, is the group going to be any less unhappy if that kills the campaign?Nope, they will not be less happy. But blame will shift from the player to the GM who shouldn't have accepted a character completely unfit for the module.

[Mastikator]

Let's say that I give my character traits and flaws around "the human form is perfect; other stuff is just weird". So "-2 to hit anything with 6+ legs, +1 to hit anything with 2 legs", "-2 to hit anything with tentacles, +1 to hit anything with 2 arms", "won't accept grafts / piercings / tattoos / other body modifications", "hatred: Mutants".

If the party learns that Mirkwood is infested with spiders, and I convince the party not to go there, should we encounter fewer humanoid opponents as a result, to balance how much my trait disadvantaged me?

If the module had called for us allying with a group of Mutants, and, instead, we slaughter them all, and add their corpses to the Necromancer's army of Undead, is the group going to be any less unhappy if that kills the campaign?

In my experience "is a racist jerk" is a bad flaw to allow a PC to have. And also a good motivation for a villain to have. Unless it was an evil campaign where the GM is taking into account evil actions from the party I would probably just not allow this flaw to begin with.

[Vahnavoi]

Trying, I really am, I have read your posts multiple times at this point, but I am having difficulty finding a single argument against flaws where I can't make a 1 to 1 comparison in complaining about a character being able to drop their strength score and buying up another attribute as a result.

The comparison does no work for you if you don't get the logic behind the original argument. So focus on your own subject: flaws, and leave others for another day.


Well, I can tell you that I have been enjoying games which do allow that level of customization far more than one's which don't since the mid 90s, and I have never played with anyone who made it known that they thought they were a waste of time.

Which is more important again? Fairness or customization? Fairness or making a game you'd enjoy?

See, one of your overarching flaws as a game designer seems to be that your true guiding principle is "make a game I'd enjoy", but instead of straightforwardly following that principle and just copying game elements you enjoy, you feel compelled to ask feedback from players who've been empirically proven to not enjoy the types of games you'd enjoy. And random folks on the internet whose preferences you have few real ideas about.

[icefractal]

The comparison does no work for you if you don't get the logic behind the original argument. So focus on your own subject: flaws, and leave others for another day.:smallconfused: This seems like a total non-answer. "If you can't see how my argument is correct, you must not understand it."

You prefer not to have any mechanical representation of flaws. Fine, valid preference. You have not so far demonstrated a reason they're objectively bad.

[Vahnavoi]

:smallconfused: This seems like a total non-answer. "If you can't see how my argument is correct, you must not understand it."

That's not what I said.


You prefer not to have any mechanical representation of flaws. Fine, valid preference. You have not so far demonstrated a reason they're objectively bad.

I'm not trying to demonstrate they're objectively bad - I'm questioning having them as a separate subsystem based on design principles. Those are not the same thing. If you go back to my first post, you'll outright see me give two reasons why you'd have flaws.

Saying I have not succesfully argued for something I was never arguing for is not a counter argument.

[MoiMagnus]

Also, if your remove "flaws as a way to get more character creation points at no cost", you might want to take a look at character creation in general and increase the base number of points.

Some systems might leads to character that are pretty uninteresting to build and/or play if you don't have the additional points from the flaws. In which case the correct homebrew would be "Take the points from the maximum number of allowed 'flaws' by the rules, but don't take the associated flaws. Now here is a new subsystem if you want your character to truly be flawed, but don't expect to be able to min-max those."

[Talakeal]

Which is more important again? Fairness or customization? Fairness or making a game you'd enjoy?.

All of them at once.

While perfect balance is impossible, it is not unreasonable to allow a great deal of customization options which have costs approximate to their power. Likewise, I prefer for crunch and fluff to work together, and things that have a noticeable impact on one should be modeled in the other.

Flaws don't need to mean a worse character overall. The players being roughly balanced doesn’t make perfect sense in fiction, but it doesn’t agregiously hurt verisimilitude the way a one armed man dual wielding would. And it is possible for a flawed character to be roughly as good as anyone else, for example a young healthy recruit right out of boot camp and an old veteran who knows everything about war and a lifetime of experience with the blade, but whose body is broken by said lifetime or war and may have physical or mental handicaps as a result could both be equally contributing members of a mercenary corps.

Also, while I like your initial premise of flaws as a self imposed hard mode, and indeed do it in almost every game, in my experience most players see it as selfishly sabotaging the group’s success and I have literally been kicked out of a half dozen groups for it.



See, one of your overarching flaws as a game designer seems to be that your true guiding principle is "make a game I'd enjoy", but instead of straightforwardly following that principle and just copying game elements you enjoy, you feel compelled to ask feedback from players who've been empirically proven to not enjoy the types of games you'd enjoy. And random folks on the internet whose preferences you have few real ideas about.

Its not one or the other.

While yes, I agree that one of my flaws as a person, not just a game designer, is I want to talk everything to death and will never agree to disagree, its not always a bad thing.

I have received tons of good feedback from play-testers and forums, and have made hundreds of changes to my game as a result. And even though most feedback I don't agree with and don’t use, discussing it still helps me better understand where other people are coming from as well as my own position.

And, its not always about me. While the ultimate decision is mine, sometimes I do bow to the masses. For example, I much prefer games with acquisition rolls to coin counting, but every time I have tried to introduce such a thing to Heart of Darkness, it is universally hated by both play-testers and forums, and so I have never gone through with it.

And yeah, copying systems works for a baseline, but nothing is ever perfect. Merits and Flaws straight out of World of Darkness is a good system, but it has its flaws, no pun intended, and so while my initial implementation was more or less a direct copy, I have iterated on it over time, as has White Wolf / Onyx Path.


:smallconfused: This seems like a total non-answer. "If you can't see how my argument is correct, you must not understand it."

You prefer not to have any mechanical representation of flaws. Fine, valid preference. You have not so far demonstrated a reason they're objectively bad.

What he said.

[Anonymouswizard]

Are we back to giving out stat and skill points based on age categories? I mean it's not a terrible system, I do like Burning Wheel's character creation, but it's always more complicated than strictly required.

Honestly, the problem with granular crunch and CP for flaws is the same, it in practice increases the gap between the power gamer (who has taken flaws which apply to things they just don't care about) and the average player (who selected flaws for concept, if at all). That's not that other forms of handling flaws don't have their issues, but I've personally seen them less often.

I once tried to convince my GM that I shouldn't have been allowed to take the 'weak melee strikes' flaw, because I already had so low strength that even after we patched the healing punches loophole I was still getting free points for something that didn't actually limit me. Weirdly he refused because his system was basically balanced around my character taking it, but he did ban my attempt to minmax my way down to one hit point (I had two, and only survived due to exploring the lack of rules in just what you can react to a charge with...).

Oh yeah, it's not talked about as much but over-minning is also an issue. Most commonly thought of in the 'Grog the Barbarian took 3 Charisma, Odious Personal Habits, Body Odour, Short Temper, and Bloodlust' style, but some of us will min other areas for the challenge.


Anybody else think that Talakeal's perspective might be skewed via his known history of bad groups? He does seem to have an unusual tendency to get them.

[Vahnavoi]

All of them at once.

While perfect balance is impossible, it is not unreasonable to allow a great deal of customization options which have costs approximate to their power. Likewise, I prefer for crunch and fluff to work together, and things that have a noticeable impact on one should be modeled in the other.

*groan*

You might have heard some version of optimizer's triad in your life: fast, cheap, good. Pick two. Can't have the third. The reason we say that is because in real life, multiple design goals can interfere with each other and often do. When that happens, you don't say "all at once", you pick which are more important and compromise the one that doesn't make the cut. On some level you must've realized it, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten this much work done. If you don't start to embrace it, you'll never finish.

The amount of customization in particular directly interferes with fairness in a mathematically simple and objective way: the amount of interacting customization widgets increases the amount of work required to balance them factorially. Arbitrary "+X to one check at the cost of -X to another" is a great example of a mechanic that is near impossible to make fair - like everyone and their mother in this thread has been able to tell you, these are rarely prompted equally. They say the bonus is prompted (or should be prompted) more often, but it could be as well the opposite; either way, it ends up unbalanced compared to those not using the mechanic. It also ends up unbalanced compared to other instances of the same mechanic without constant fine-tuning on the GM's side, which you can't ensure outside games you personally hold, since you do not control game scenarios.

If you desire fairness - if what you intent is truly for +X and -X to equal 0 - then you should not have these kinds of rules via direct application of Occam's Razor. Do not multiply entities needlessly. Between two rules models that create same effect, choose the simpler one. Turns out, you get 0 by not having those kind of rules in the first place. Plus it eliminates all designer and GM fine-tuning needs.

If you still don't want to get rid of such rules, then you have implicitly decided customizability is more important than fairness. You want yourself and your players have those widgets. Fairness takes a hit as a direct result. If you want any amount of fairness, you pay for it with extra work.


Flaws don't need to mean a worse character overall.

Nobody claiming it needs to mean that - completely the opposite, everyone and their mother has pointed out flaws, as a mechanic, can make your character better overall, or have no result whatsoever. I'm questioning why you'd choose those options. Why call flaws "flaws", if they're boons in disguise? Or why waste effort adding extra rules if you don't want those rules to matter? These aren't rhetorical questions - I gave one valid answer in my first post. Clearly, your answer is that yes, having customization trade-offs is more important than flaws changing the way a game is played by being actual flaws.


The players being roughly balanced doesn’t make perfect sense in fiction, but it doesn’t agregiously hurt verisimilitude the way a one armed man dual wielding would. And it is possible for a flawed character to be roughly as good as anyone else, for example a young healthy recruit right out of boot camp and an old veteran who knows everything about war and a lifetime of experience with the blade, but whose body is broken by said lifetime or war and may have physical or mental handicaps as a result could both be equally contributing members of a mercenary corps.

If you cherry-pick the entire space of possible characters, you can find examples of "fair" pairs of flawed and flawless characters. This doesn't mean you should try to stretch your mechanical system to cover such examples. The more accurately you model the factors that differentiate the recruit from the veteran, the harder it actually becomes to ensure they are and remain equally contributing, and the easier it becomes to create unfair pairs of characters. This is what happens with all old versions of D&D that use random generation, by the way: they can generate a pair such as your recruit and veteran, but not because they even try to ensure parity among characters. Instead, it's just possible to roll so well that the veteran, even after penalties from old age, has the same stats as the younger character.

As for your one-armed dual wielder, have you playtested this to see if it ever happens? Because it strikes me as another mirage conjured by your own way of thinking. Players have their sense of verisimilitude too, you know - which in practice means that if they lose an arm, they won't even try to dual wield. The fact that they technically could is not relevant to their decision. Of someone pushed it, you could always say they wield the additional weapon with their teeth or feet - perfectly acceptable in a fantastic, abstract system.


Also, while I like your initial premise of flaws as a self imposed hard mode, and indeed do it in almost every game, in my experience most players see it as selfishly sabotaging the group’s success and I have literally been kicked out of a half dozen groups for it.

That's where we get back to your tragedy as a game designer. Those people are victims of old game design and their existing metagame of it. You are making a new game. Instead of disabusing old players of their stubborn habits, find new players and have them build their own metagame. One that doesn't, for example, include obsession over group success.


Its not one or the other.

While yes, I agree that one of my flaws as a person, not just a game designer, is I want to talk everything to death and will never agree to disagree, its not always a bad thing.

I have received tons of good feedback from play-testers and forums, and have made hundreds of changes to my game as a result. And even though most feedback I don't agree with and don’t use, discussing it still helps me better understand where other people are coming from as well as my own position.

If you say so.

I don't have access to full version history of your game and the feedback you've required, so I can't conclusively tell if it was genuinely good or if your design has been pointlessly drifting as a result of unvetted crap.

[GloatingSwine]

In my homebrew system (link in sig), I used to have numerous flaws which provided bonus points with which to build your character. Some of these had mechanical effects, others were RP aids like the character has a phobia, or lives by a code of honor, or is on the run from the authorities, or is an alcoholic.

Recently though, I changed how it works is that only flaws which provide a numerical penalty give extra character points, typically enough to buy an equivalent bonus in some other area, thus allowing for more customizable characters.

RP traits instead provide circumstantial bonuses when acting in accordance with it, and circumstantial penalties when acting against it; so like if you have a code of honor to never see harm come to children, you might get a -2 penalty when attacking children but also a +2 bonus when defending a child. These neither provide nor cost character points.

I personally thought it was a massive improvement.

So, when I showed this to one of my players, he was extremely disappointed. Basically, he said that the only people who take flaws in an RPG are min-maxxers who are trying to game the system and get something for nothing, and that balanced flaws like this are completely uninteresting and unappealing, and that by making this change I have effectively removed all flaws from the game as no player would ever actually select one.

Is he right? Thought?

I'm sure that there are players that play like he describes, but a system probably shouldn't be designed to cater to them.

I think you're on the right track with only permanent flaws giving permanent bonuses, and roleplay traits being circumstantial, but circumstantial flaws that give penalties when you act in against them are in danger of being an incentive to inaction if they only have negatives (eg. a phobia, there's no real way to act in accordance with that that still allows you to interact with the encounter). Ideally you want these sort of circumstantial flaws with no direct upside to drive players to act against them, doing something they're worse at now in order to earn some sort of transient resource they can spend again later on doing something else. (fate points, hero points, whatever, something they earn by taking a disadvantage now in order to gain a commensurate advantage somewhere else).

Since AFAICT your system doesn't have a transient resource like that, it's best to leave those sort of things in the realm of roleplay and not systematise them.

[Talakeal]

I'm sure that there are players that play like he describes, but a system probably shouldn't be designed to cater to them.

I think you're on the right track with only permanent flaws giving permanent bonuses, and roleplay traits being circumstantial, but circumstantial flaws that give penalties when you act in against them are in danger of being an incentive to inaction if they only have negatives (eg. a phobia, there's no real way to act in accordance with that that still allows you to interact with the encounter). Ideally you want these sort of circumstantial flaws with no direct upside to drive players to act against them, doing something they're worse at now in order to earn some sort of transient resource they can spend again later on doing something else. (fate points, hero points, whatever, something they earn by taking a disadvantage now in order to gain a commensurate advantage somewhere else).

Since AFAICT your system doesn't have a transient resource like that, it's best to leave those sort of things in the realm of roleplay and not systematise them.

Most quirks reward destiny points which can be used to reroll dice.

For phobia specifically, it gives you destiny when you disadvantage yourself to avoid a phobia, for example a character with a fear of water refusing to get on a boat and instead taking a much longer overland journey, or a character with a fear of spiders staying in the back when they would be more effective fighting giant spiders in melee. As a drawback, it inflicts psychic damage (in essence reducing your ability to pull of amazing feats through willpower) each time you come into direct contact with the object of your fear.

[King of Nowhere]

He was undoubtedly upset that he was no longer able to game the system for free points. But he also said that most players would feel the same way, so I was effectively removing flaws from the game as they are now just wasted space that will never get used.

you should know, by now, to not confuse the average gamer (in all their shades) with your players.

Min/maxers will use flaws to increase their optimization, but that doesn't mean they will ignore the flaws. It's the munchkins who ignore flaws or choose that which will have as little impact as possible. That Guy players will also exploit flaws to use them as an excuse to be disruptive to the game. For example, using "greedy" as an excuse to steal from the party and/or keep found party treasure for themselves. Your friend is likely used to playing with munchkins and That Guys.
see also: talakeal's players

[Psyren]

So, when I showed this to one of my players, he was extremely disappointed. Basically, he said that the only people who take flaws in an RPG are min-maxxers who are trying to game the system and get something for nothing, and that balanced flaws like this are completely uninteresting and unappealing, and that by making this change I have effectively removed all flaws from the game as no player would ever actually select one.

Obligatory:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU

Less facetiously - obviously your friend is wrong, mechanical flaws are a tool in the game designer's toolbelt, and like any tool they can be used well or poorly.

[False God]

For every group ever, sure.

For an individual group, maybe.

My university group had a case of the GM loving crunchy games that try to stimulate characters, his wife far preferring simpler games, me being somewhere in the middle but preferring narrative simulation. While we never found a perfect system we did manage to compromise like adults, and after our game of Mutants & Masterminds I think Ubiquity might have gone down really well.

I've occasionally been the only person in a group who's perfect system isn't D&D . Which is annoying but understandable.

Well but that's the rub. A more generic systems by itself is never going to result in always happy groups where no players ever get kicked. BUT a specific group of people can agree to a certain system, perhaps with some(or a lot of) houserules, and create an ultra-niche system custom tailored to that specific group and their specific needs.

The OP seems to waffle back and forth between wanting to make a "generic system" (and thus, not being able to please his group), and wanting to please his group in specific. The latter will never please everyone, but it never intended to so that doesn't matter.

It just can't be both.

As Vahnavoi mentions above, it's another idiom the OP seems to be missing: "You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time."

[Talakeal]

Well but that's the rub. A more generic systems by itself is never going to result in always happy groups where no players ever get kicked. BUT a specific group of people can agree to a certain system, perhaps with some(or a lot of) houserules, and create an ultra-niche system custom tailored to that specific group and their specific needs.

The OP seems to waffle back and forth between wanting to make a "generic system" (and thus, not being able to please his group), and wanting to please his group in specific. The latter will never please everyone, but it never intended to so that doesn't matter.

It just can't be both.

As Vahnavoi mentions above, it's another idiom the OP seems to be missing: "You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time."

I don’t think anything could ever please my current group.

Doesn’t mean that their observations are never applicable to the wider community, or that my observations for problem areas in multiple groups don’t have any basis.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well but that's the rub. A more generic systems by itself is never going to result in always happy groups where no players ever get kicked. BUT a specific group of people can agree to a certain system, perhaps with some(or a lot of) houserules, and create an ultra-niche system custom tailored to that specific group and their specific needs.

The OP seems to waffle back and forth between wanting to make a "generic system" (and thus, not being able to please his group), and wanting to please his group in specific. The latter will never please everyone, but it never intended to so that doesn't matter.

It just can't be both.

As Vahnavoi mentions above, it's another idiom the OP seems to be missing: "You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time."

Yeah, and honestly if we'd had a few more years I think my uni group would have found a perfect compromise system where nobody was dissatisfied. Which is I think another thing we're missing.

You don't actually need the perfect system, just one that everybody can find enjoyable. Notably my university group played four systems over the years with a wide variety of crunch levels and everybody had fun in all of them, even if it was never a perfect system.

GURPS, which our GM loves and used for over the campaigns, is one of the best ways to see how a generic system isn't always going to work. GURPS can do anything, but making it so that can take a lot of work. It's the one system were we managed to have a character dedicated towards crafting consumables, but even relatively simple concepts went through three or four iterations.

And then when I played a game with a group in my hometown none of those systems would have been truly viable, even Unknown Armies. Because different groups are different people, and they had massively different priorities.


I don’t think anything could ever please my current group.

Doesn’t mean that their observations are never applicable to the wider community, or that my observations for problem areas in multiple groups don’t have any basis.

No, but it's still significant and should be taken into account. I've personally never seen must of the issues you've brought up, the one I've probably seen must often is disad munchkinery, and even that was fairly range.

I have a feeling that you might be assuming that such opinions are more common than they are. It's like how the 5e board here has very different views to most players of 5e.

[False God]

I don’t think anything could ever please my current group.
Then why do you keep trying? Cut your losses.


Doesn’t mean that their observations are never applicable to the wider community, or that my observations for problem areas in multiple groups don’t have any basis.
I never said that.


Yeah, and honestly if we'd had a few more years I think my uni group would have found a perfect compromise system where nobody was dissatisfied. Which is I think another thing we're missing.

You don't actually need the perfect system, just one that everybody can find enjoyable. Notably my university group played four systems over the years with a wide variety of crunch levels and everybody had fun in all of them, even if it was never a perfect system.

GURPS, which our GM loves and used for over the campaigns, is one of the best ways to see how a generic system isn't always going to work. GURPS can do anything, but making it so that can take a lot of work. It's the one system were we managed to have a character dedicated towards crafting consumables, but even relatively simple concepts went through three or four iterations.

And then when I played a game with a group in my hometown none of those systems would have been truly viable, even Unknown Armies. Because different groups are different people, and they had massively different priorities.

Yep, it's as important to find compatible players as it is a compatible system. Having half the group want hardcore crunch and the other want fluff and flavor can be reconciled, but sometimes it's just easier to make 2 groups that are into two different things.

[Beleriphon]

I like flaws that work on the basis of the GM giving you something for introducing the character flaw in game. FATE for example might have a scene at a bar and the Character has an aspect about being a recovering alcoholic. Do, they partake or not? GM will hand out a FATE point if the character does, and the player can say no they resist this time by not accepting the point. In essence by making this an aspect, the player says "I want this to come up and get points for playing this in game." They can also use it as a positive, maybe their AA sponsor is a cop, or they can leverage their experience in being a recovering alcoholic in someway to turn a situation around.

M&M has a similar setup. You don't get build points back for having Complications, but you do get Hero Points to spend in game for fun stuff, like free alternate powers, over coming fatigue, all kinds of stuff. As a superhero game the expectation is that Aunt May is doing her monthly banking at the same time Doc Ock is robbing the Mid-Town Bank! What is Spidey going to do if Ock threatens May? First the player will get a Hero Point to help either immediately, or in the future.

[Glorthindel]

Also, if your remove "flaws as a way to get more character creation points at no cost", you might want to take a look at character creation in general and increase the base number of points.

Some systems might leads to character that are pretty uninteresting to build and/or play if you don't have the additional points from the flaws. In which case the correct homebrew would be "Take the points from the maximum number of allowed 'flaws' by the rules, but don't take the associated flaws. Now here is a new subsystem if you want your character to truly be flawed, but don't expect to be able to min-max those."

It is very definitely the case that a lot of systems with "trade flaws for Building Points" systems expect you to do so, as a lot of characters just aren't buildable without those extra Build Points.

I am currently looking at character ideas for a new Hackmaster campaign. Hackmaster has this exact system (with the variation that flaws are worth a flat rate if you cherry-pick them, considerably more if you roll on the random charts). A standard Human Fighter gets 20 BP's (10 for race, 10 for class). However, those BP's just don't stretch far enough (a Class kit costs between 10 and 15, Talents about 5-10 each, Skills range from 1 to 10 (and you are expected to need to buy them multiple times to get decent levels in them), Weapon Proficiencies are 1 each). A standard human fighter will find himself with probably 1 talent, no class kit, his base weapon proficiencies, and 3-4 skills at a very low level. A 'decent' build (which is far from a powerful one) needs somewhere in the region of 28-35 BP's, so it needs those extra flaw points. But the game lets you get these easily - one flaw worth 2BP's if you cherry pick it is "male pattern baldness" which has no negative whatsoever.

Ultimately, whether the game should or should not have such "min-max friendly flaw choices" depends on if the games balance point expects you to have them.

[kyoryu]

I like flaws that work on the basis of the GM giving you something for introducing the character flaw in game. FATE for example might have a scene at a bar and the Character has an aspect about being a recovering alcoholic. Do, they partake or not? GM will hand out a FATE point if the character does, and the player can say no they resist this time by not accepting the point. In essence by making this an aspect, the player says "I want this to come up and get points for playing this in game." They can also use it as a positive, maybe their AA sponsor is a cop, or they can leverage their experience in being a recovering alcoholic in someway to turn a situation around.

M&M has a similar setup. You don't get build points back for having Complications, but you do get Hero Points to spend in game for fun stuff, like free alternate powers, over coming fatigue, all kinds of stuff. As a superhero game the expectation is that Aunt May is doing her monthly banking at the same time Doc Ock is robbing the Mid-Town Bank! What is Spidey going to do if Ock threatens May? First the player will get a Hero Point to help either immediately, or in the future.

Also my favorite. It has players picking things that will actually come up and be part of the game, and gets rid of the minigame of "how can I get the most points for things that either won't come up, or I wouldn't want to do anyway?"

[Anonymouswizard]

Also my favorite. It has players picking things that will actually come up and be part of the game, and gets rid of the minigame of "how can I get the most points for things that either won't come up, or I wouldn't want to do anyway?"

On the other hand, the argument that it leads to Fate Point Fishing does have some legitimacy. I'd personally argue that that's the point, and you can also effectively play the game without Compels (but why would you), but some people might not like the shifted screen time from 'what are we good at' to 'what are we bad at'.

Honestly, I think at the end of the day Fate does character traits best just by getting rid of the Boon/Flaw separation.

[kyoryu]

On the other hand, the argument that it leads to Fate Point Fishing does have some legitimacy. I'd personally argue that that's the point, and you can also effectively play the game without Compels (but why would you), but some people might not like the shifted screen time from 'what are we good at' to 'what are we bad at'.

Honestly, I think at the end of the day Fate does character traits best just by getting rid of the Boon/Flaw separation.

Practically, that's usually handled by ensuring that the Compel does give an actual complication, combined with the GM just kinda going "dude, seriously?" in those fishing attempts. Fate is definitely a game where GM/table oversight is as important as anything in the rules directly. As such, it can definitely fail in the category of games that don't work with people that tend towards intractable.

I'd personally say that aspects aren't boons/flaws. Boons would be stunts, in most cases. Aspects are more like Chekov's Guns.

[Max_Killjoy]

Also my favorite. It has players picking things that will actually come up and be part of the game, and gets rid of the minigame of "how can I get the most points for things that either won't come up, or I wouldn't want to do anyway?"




On the other hand, the argument that it leads to Fate Point Fishing does have some legitimacy. I'd personally argue that that's the point, and you can also effectively play the game without Compels (but why would you), but some people might not like the shifted screen time from 'what are we good at' to 'what are we bad at'.

Honestly, I think at the end of the day Fate does character traits best just by getting rid of the Boon/Flaw separation.


Whether they award CP or whatever at build, or award mechanics or narrative-affecting tokens during play... what none of the systems in question handle well is the player who doesn't want side-drama at all, and just wants to get on with solving the mystery or completing the job or doing the whatever thing. Either one actively punishes that player by making them choose between something they don't want, or deeply disadvantaging their character.

[kyoryu]

Whether they award CP or whatever at build, or award mechanics or narrative-affecting tokens during play... what none of the systems in question handle well is the player who doesn't want side-drama at all, and just wants to get on with solving the mystery or completing the job or doing the whatever thing. Either one actively punishes that player by making them choose between something they don't want, or deeply disadvantaging their character.

I'd say that you're making assumptions that don't necessarily hold.

Namely, that the adventure is a separate thing that exists apart from the characters. In a system like Fate, it's not, it's designed around the characters and built on their actions. So in this case, it's more like "the GM is going to screw with your lives in some ways. Why not have it be something you're interested in, and get points for it?"

That, of course, is not how a lot of games work. And in those situations, you'd have more of a point.

[NichG]

Rather than having flaws that are just bad things or difficult personality traits, I tend to like sidegrades that make it so that a character is playing a different game. So no 'anger management problems, make Will saves to avoid getting into or starting fights when provoked'; instead something more like "Eternal Rage: instead of hitpoints you have an anger meter. Every time you hurt someone or are hurt by someone this increases by a but. Every round neither happens, your anger drops by half to a minimum of your Con score. An attack dealing more damage than your anger KOs you/kills you if exceeds by 10, but otherwise you sustain no damage."

[Anymage]

If someone is able to play a different game, expect players to math out which one is more optimal and all play that. Plus you get into all the messes subsystem bloat brings.

Fate points do seem like the ideal flaw template. Even assuming a 5e base without giving players too many narrative powers*, being rewarded for sticking to a character's personality traits/flaws (either by getting a point for following up a trait when it raises a complication, or being able to spend a point for a benefit only when a relevant trait can be invoked) is a good way to encourage characterization. Encouraging players to ask means it's one less thing on the GM's mental load. And having a separate currency instead of xp rewards means you don't have to worry about different long term growth rates.

*(I do think D&D could also use some system where a player could claim ownership over a region or npc. In large part because I recently saw a player retire their character in order to keep a favorite npc out of harm's way. That's kind of a separate topic, though.)

[NichG]

If someone is able to play a different game, expect players to math out which one is more optimal and all play that. Plus you get into all the messes subsystem bloat brings.

It's not really a different design challenge than designing interesting options in general, but embracing that design challenge is pretty important for my tastes. When its done well, things like that tend to break along players' preferences about playstyle, enable combos or interesting build ideas, or have a high degree of dependence on campaign specifics and events within the campaign. Something like Path of Exile would be my go-to example of this being done pretty well at scale in CRPGs - you do get meme builds and the handful of potent options every league, but overall people do play a lot of different things, even multiple things each league.

There's also the whole thing about designing around incomparables rather than comparables. Don't spend so much effort populating a tradeoff between to-hit and damage per hit, because they collapse into the same number. Instead focus on tradeoffs between e.g. movement speed vs perceptual abilities vs whether the character acts directly from their location or indirectly from summons/turrets/etc, which are very hard to boil down into a single win-rate evaluation. That has a much greater chance of hitting different player tastes in different ways as well - some players may like having a bunch of minions where they can pick the best one for a situation, and others may want the simplicity of having one unified schtick, etc.

[Anonymouswizard]

Whether they award CP or whatever at build, or award mechanics or narrative-affecting tokens during play... what none of the systems in question handle well is the player who doesn't want side-drama at all, and just wants to get on with solving the mystery or completing the job or doing the whatever thing. Either one actively punishes that player by making them choose between something they don't want, or deeply disadvantaging their character.

At this point I'd argue that the issue is with the player not the game. In the case of Fate at least such 'side drama' it's an intended part of the game, the lows so that the highs are higher. But there's nothing wrong with not including flaws in your game, and such a game is probably better for that player.

Working as intended is not an issue. Playing something built around a loop you don't want to engage in is.

[Tanarii]

Whether they award CP or whatever at build, or award mechanics or narrative-affecting tokens during play... what none of the systems in question handle well is the player who doesn't want side-drama at all, and just wants to get on with solving the mystery or completing the job or doing the whatever thing. Either one actively punishes that player by making them choose between something they don't want, or deeply disadvantaging their character.
I mean, the same can be said for getting in a fight. That's a form of side-drama between you and completing an adventure objective in many games. So having to invest in the ability to fight in those games could be seem in the same light.

I hear what you're saying though. I'm not a huge fan of games where narrative mechanics focusing on character personality or interplay are a critical component of play.

Although Paranoia does both pretty well. :smallamused:

[Anonymouswizard]

Although Paranoia does both pretty well. :smallamused:

I wish I could read that text, but it's above my security clearance.

[Beleriphon]

Whether they award CP or whatever at build, or award mechanics or narrative-affecting tokens during play... what none of the systems in question handle well is the player who doesn't want side-drama at all, and just wants to get on with solving the mystery or completing the job or doing the whatever thing. Either one actively punishes that player by making them choose between something they don't want, or deeply disadvantaging their character.

On side drama, I'd argue that if you're playing FATE you need FATE points. They're a critical part of the how the game is played. Also, if you're playing something like FATE you presumably like the game and the way it works, which includes what you're calling side-drama. Keep in mind that one of FATE's core mechanics is coming up with the characters as a group, so everybody knows what the game and characters are about. Dresden Files RPG takes this a point further and the group builds the setting almost like a group created character, although it's generally assumed the GM picks the specific city the game is set in. So, there's already an incentive to have side-drama, and the player that isn't interested in it can pick Aspects that don't lend themselves to that kind of thing.

I'd liken it to playing Star Wars and then somehow hating space ships, laser swords, magical space wizards, and Darth Vader. If you aren't into Star Wars what the heck are you doing playing a Star Wars game?

[kyoryu]

Also, if you're playing something like FATE you presumably like the game and the way it works, which includes what you're calling side-drama.


I'm just going to reiterate that in Fate, it shouldn't be "side drama". It should be "drama". If you've got an Enemy of the Red Claw Clan, then them attacking you isn't a diversion from your Quest to get the Macguffin. Chances are, they're the ones that either have the Macguffin, or are trying to get the Macguffin.

In Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Rocket steals that energy source which spawns a ton of plot. In Fate, that's a Compel, for sure. It's a fantastic example of one. But it's not a side drama. It's the drama itself.

But if you're doing Lost Mines of Pandhelver or whatever, and some new side thing is introduced by one of the characters? That's totally side drama, and I completely understand why that would be annoying to a large number of people.

Note that I'm not really advocating for Fate here - if you really do want to play through something pre-designed, that's not about your characters in that intimate of a way, where your characters are essentially the things you're using to impact a situation that's not really directly tied to them? That's cool, go for it, and you're right, that kind of thing probably won't work for you.

[Max_Killjoy]

At this point I'd argue that the issue is with the player not the game. In the case of Fate at least such 'side drama' it's an intended part of the game, the lows so that the highs are higher. But there's nothing wrong with not including flaws in your game, and such a game is probably better for that player.

Working as intended is not an issue. Playing something built around a loop you don't want to engage in is.


Part of the challenge these days is finding systems that don't presume the necessity of that "drama" part, and also at the same time aren't some form of OSR or whatever.

...



I'm just going to reiterate that in Fate, it shouldn't be "side drama". It should be "drama". If you've got an Enemy of the Red Claw Clan, then them attacking you isn't a diversion from your Quest to get the Macguffin. Chances are, they're the ones that either have the Macguffin, or are trying to get the Macguffin.

In Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Rocket steals that energy source which spawns a ton of plot. In Fate, that's a Compel, for sure. It's a fantastic example of one. But it's not a side drama. It's the drama itself.

But if you're doing Lost Mines of Pandhelver or whatever, and some new side thing is introduced by one of the characters? That's totally side drama, and I completely understand why that would be annoying to a large number of people.

Note that I'm not really advocating for Fate here - if you really do want to play through something pre-designed, that's not about your characters in that intimate of a way, where your characters are essentially the things you're using to impact a situation that's not really directly tied to them? That's cool, go for it, and you're right, that kind of thing probably won't work for you.


I think there's an excluded middle hiding in there.

Characters can be more than playing pieces, without the events being entangled with their personal lives.

For example, an arc in a campaign can be present a mystery, and different characters will interact with that mystery and solving it in different ways, they'll have different motivations, react with NPCs differently, and bring different skills to the table. They're still "people who could be real", but the events don't interact with their personal lives.

I had a character in a fantasy RPG who adventured because he needed the money, he had both his own family and his dead brother's family back home to send money to. That extended family was never once threatened, never once showed up as a complication, never actually appeared in person in the course of the game... but that sense of having people who depended on him influenced which risks he would and would not take, and other characters wondered why he didn't seem to have the cash to live the lavish adventuring lifestyle, because in-character they never learned that he was depositing half of his take with the Merchants and Bankers Guild to be withdrawn back home by the family.

In fiction, and thus in gaming that tries to emulate that fiction, as soon as we learned about that family, you'd know as a reader/viewer/gamer, that "of course" the family will get entangled or threatened, because that's "why they exist" from a "narrative" perspective. It's utterly predictable and banal that it's going to happen. I absolutely love it when the villain tries to kidnap or threaten "the girlfriend" (or whoever), and that secondary character does something smart or tough or unexpected, and thwarts the whole thing on their own, instead of being Designated Victim #295478239349.

[kyoryu]

I think there's an excluded middle hiding in there.

Characters can be more than playing pieces, without the events being entangled with their personal lives.


I deliberate didn't say "playing pieces" for exactly that reason. Both "playing pieces" and "events being entangled with their personal lives" are, for the purposes of this conversation, functionally equivalent.

[Talakeal]

Whether they award CP or whatever at build, or award mechanics or narrative-affecting tokens during play... what none of the systems in question handle well is the player who doesn't want side-drama at all, and just wants to get on with solving the mystery or completing the job or doing the whatever thing. Either one actively punishes that player by making them choose between something they don't want, or deeply disadvantaging their character.

I fully agree.

Flaws should not be mandatory for people who don't want them.

Ideally, any bonuses you get would purely be there to offset the disadvantages of the flaw rather than a required part of the system.

I don't think my game has flaws as a requirement for decent builds, I am pretty generous with character points and most of my PCs don't take more than a couple of flaws, but than again in a dedicated min-maxxer's hands they are going to find a way to only take flaws that never come up.

I did have a note in my book about GM's being able to deny character points for flaws that would never come up, but unfortunately people started reading that a little too literally and insisting that lack of options was not in itself a flaw; for example if I took a flaw "can never use ranged weapons" it would not be worth any points because, by definition, the inability to do something will "never come up".

[Beleriphon]

I had a character in a fantasy RPG who adventured because he needed the money, he had both his own family and his dead brother's family back home to send money to. That extended family was never once threatened, never once showed up as a complication, never actually appeared in person in the course of the game... but that sense of having people who depended on him influenced which risks he would and would not take, and other characters wondered why he didn't seem to have the cash to live the lavish adventuring lifestyle, because in-character they never learned that he was depositing half of his take with the Merchants and Bankers Guild to be withdrawn back home by the family.

That's a good example of what the Flaw system that I like personally. Basically, you get offered a shiny meta-currency point in exchange of making the situation more dangerous/dramatic/whatever because your character wants the loot to help their poor bedraggled mum. Part of the appeal of something like FATE is that it encourages you the player to find reasons to do this and point them out to the GM and other players. Basically, FATE and similar games reward the player for having that kind of motivation with game mechanics.


I did have a note in my book about GM's being able to deny character points for flaws that would never come up, but unfortunately people started reading that a little too literally and insisting that lack of options was not in itself a flaw; for example if I took a flaw "can never use ranged weapons" it would not be worth any points because, by definition, the inability to do something will "never come up".

I think a handy gauge is the 50% rule on this one. Its not a flaw unless it limits something's utility by around half. Green Lantern's inability to use the ring on yellow things is a problem, his biggest enemy wears a yellow suit and uses a yellow version of the same powers.

[Vahnavoi]

@Max_Killjoy and kyoryu: your discussion tangent can be condensed into a single question:

In a game, are the characters there to facilitate exploration of a situation, or is the situation there to facilitate exploration of the characters?

OSR and old D&D leans towards the first, while FATE leans towards the second. Typically, whenever someone begins talking of "character driven" gaming, they are leaning towards the second. Another way to put this is that modern games and players have taken the idea that a character is the fundamental unit a player controls to mean that the fundamental type of gaming is character drama.

[BRC]

That's a good example of what the Flaw system that I like personally. Basically, you get offered a shiny meta-currency point in exchange of making the situation more dangerous/dramatic/whatever because your character wants the loot to help their poor bedraggled mum. Part of the appeal of something like FATE is that it encourages you the player to find reasons to do this and point them out to the GM and other players. Basically, FATE and similar games reward the player for having that kind of motivation with game mechanics.

What it comes down to is what is the game about, and very much falls into the category of "Can't please all the people all the time".

For some people, they want to play a game about a bunch of adventurers going to kill a dragon. What they want is to throw everything they have at the scenario, and will resent anybody who takes nonoptimal actions to play out their relevant flaws. They don't want to play a game about Joe the Fighter trying to scrape together enough money for his mum, they want to kill a dragon!

If playing out one's flaws is a central part of the system, those same players are going to dislike that, or otherwise incorporate it into strategic calculus. "Is engaging with this flaw going to GET us more character points than it COSTS to deal with the issue"

(There's also the resource of player time. Even if playing out a flaw gets you a point that you spend to get out of it, with net-zero resources, you just spent time not pursuing the central, joint goal)

Other players love the idea of spending game time bouncing off each other's flaws. Mechanical rewards for doing so are both incentive, and a way to make it so that they are not punished for engaging with that side of the game. For these players, Earning a point via a flaw, and then spending that point to get out of the problem you caused is a great use of time, since they got to play through their character without hurting the party's overall chance of success.

But the "Flawed people bouncing off each other" and the "Competent Heroes solving problems" fantasies can be contradictory, and often run into each other. Some people are always going to be frustrated by their fellow players doing stupid things, even if the game system itself encourages those things.

As far as the "Invoke Flaws, Earn Points" system in general, my approach has always been that the best flaws there are ones that will move the action forward. Flaws like overconfidence, curiostiy, greed, vengeance, obligations, and the like. Things that let players say "I want to do X, but it's dumb, I'm going to do it.". Flaws that are about not doing things are less good. A dependent NPC that must be protected is a common example, but if you need to protect your kid sister, until she is in direct danger, you're encouraged to play cautiously (Which is boring).

[Max_Killjoy]

I deliberate didn't say "playing pieces" for exactly that reason. Both "playing pieces" and "events being entangled with their personal lives" are, for the purposes of this conversation, functionally equivalent.

That's how I read "where your characters are essentially the things you're using to impact a situation that's not really directly tied to them", totally my misunderstanding what you meant.

[Anonymouswizard]

Part of the challenge these days is finding systems that don't presume the necessity of that "drama" part, and also at the same time aren't some form of OSR or whatever.

...

Agreed, but that's a separate issue. Although I do still own several modern games that don't assume you want 'flaw drama', I suspect that they're not the big ones people talk about because that in and of itself brings them closer to D&D.

While I'm AFB, I believe that all the Year Zero Engine games work like this, as do most of the Osprey Roleplaying line (Righteous Blood, Ruthless Blades is the exception, and even it says that your character should only suffer penalties for flaws gained in play), and the various AGE games. I'm sure I could pick out a couple of others. So while it might not be the default there are still games that run with such assumptions.

There is another option of course, and it's effectively what D&D5e falls into. That's 'everybody must take a flaw, but it's just a way to get you thinking about your character'. I've only seen it in a couple of games, and in practice it's basically not any different to just not asking players to pick flaws

[kyoryu]

That's how I read "where your characters are essentially the things you're using to impact a situation that's not really directly tied to them", totally my misunderstanding what you meant.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to avoid, but I probably phrased it poorly.


@Max_Killjoy and kyoryu: your discussion tangent can be condensed into a single question:

In a game, are the characters there to facilitate exploration of a situation, or is the situation there to facilitate exploration of the characters?

OSR and old D&D leans towards the first, while FATE leans towards the second. Typically, whenever someone begins talking of "character driven" gaming, they are leaning towards the second. Another way to put this is that modern games and players have taken the idea that a character is the fundamental unit a player controls to mean that the fundamental type of gaming is character drama.

Ehhhh.... I don't think I agree with this. Most of my Fate games are about the situation as much as anything, but the situation is tightly bound up with the characters.

That line comes really close to the GNS "exploration of theme, exploration of situation, exploration of whatever Gamist is called" stuff.


But the "Flawed people bouncing off each other" and the "Competent Heroes solving problems" fantasies can be contradictory, and often run into each other. Some people are always going to be frustrated by their fellow players doing stupid things, even if the game system itself encourages those things.

They really shouldn't be. If you think of most fiction, it involves flawed characters solving problems. Like, pretty much any major piece of genre fiction. Even in hyper-competent cases like John Wick, the "flaw" as such is more of a drive, but it's there (and those types of things are just as much fodder in Fate as anything else).


As far as the "Invoke Flaws, Earn Points" system in general, my approach has always been that the best flaws there are ones that will move the action forward. Flaws like overconfidence, curiostiy, greed, vengeance, obligations, and the like. Things that let players say "I want to do X, but it's dumb, I'm going to do it.". Flaws that are about not doing things are less good. A dependent NPC that must be protected is a common example, but if you need to protect your kid sister, until she is in direct danger, you're encouraged to play cautiously (Which is boring).

I think I mostly agree. I just veer away from things that look like carrying the Idiot Ball.

[BRC]

They really shouldn't be. If you think of most fiction, it involves flawed characters solving problems. Like, pretty much any major piece of genre fiction. Even in hyper-competent cases like John Wick, the "flaw" as such is more of a drive, but it's there (and those types of things are just as much fodder in Fate as anything else).



There's a difference between watching something play out on screen/in a book, and playing through an RPG scenario. Of personally trying to achieve a goal, and feeling frustrated by your fellow players making decisions that get in the way of that goal by playing out their Flaws.

John Wick isn't a great example because it's not much of an ensemble piece.

Let's flip the perspectives on a different film. A character, let's call him "Minigo Ontoya" has the "Honorable" flaw.

Their opponent, The Man In Black, has just scaled a cliff, and Minigo is waiting on top. Minigo's player decides to play out his flaw by letting the Man In Black catch his breath before attacking. Excellent character point for Minigo!

If you were another player, one who was counting on Minigo to defeat the Man in Black, seeing Minigo's player give up the easy win would be infuriating. Yes, it's true to his character, but you are trying to achieve a goal, and, especially if Minigo fails to win his "Honorable" Duel, Minigo's player just put the success of that goal below playing out his character's flaw.

Of course, watching The Princess Bride, you're not frustrated when Inigo gives The Man In Black a chance to catch his breath, because you're more invested in the MIB's goal than Inigo's.

Similarly, if you watch a movie like Guardians of the Galaxy, Drax has the flaw "Revenge on Ronin", which gets in the way of the character's goal of keeping the macguffin safe. But when you watch that, it doesn't hit too close to home, even if you invest in the character's goals. Watching is a passive experience, you haven't been putting any energy into achieving the goals the way you would be in an RPG campaign, seeing another player shoot the party in the foot like that can be a deeply unpleasant experience if that's not the sort of game you've signed up for, even if it follows perfectly from the sort of other media the game is drawing inspiration from.

[NichG]

There's also the difference between exploring characters by watching flaws interact (which to me seems shallow, as flaws are not the only way for people to differ), versus exploring characters by having them face and answer difficult or revealing questions about themselves in their choices.

If there's an obvious optimal and suboptimal answer, it was the wrong question for that character because that means that everyone already knew the answer they were going to give.

So I'd always lean towards ways to give the character a chance to be in a situation where they don't know what they would do, versus things that pre-decide what the character should choose or which repeatedly bring up things which are already settled.

Dramatic flaws in passive media are at least for me more about making it clear to the audience that there's a question - does Rocket actually care about the others enough to sacrifice to save them, etc - than being the core of the fiction themselves. There's also a comedic place for flaws which aren't - things that the viewer wouldn't think should work, but which the character does not suffer for or turns into strengths. Rocket insulting Taserface repeatedly despite being in his power and getting away with it.

For tabletop I don't think that establishing that there is a question the character would be conflicted about is as important, since the player will know if they know what the character wants firsthand. And if they know what they want because the character has grown or changed and the Flaw they picked 10 sessions ago says otherwise, it's dissonant.

[False God]

There's also the difference between exploring characters by watching flaws interact (which to me seems shallow, as flaws are not the only way for people to differ), versus exploring characters by having them face and answer difficult or revealing questions about themselves in their choices.

This at the very least requires players who are willing to explore, reveal and answer difficult things about themselves.

Because if they can't do that, they're not going to do their character justice when they have to answer those questions.

Which again, is frankly why I think games should keep "flaws" to mundane things. A bum leg. Poor eyesight, blah blah blah. They're not interesting and they're not supposed to be. They're there to give you a few extra character-creation points at the expense of some level of control or effectiveness in your roll. They're not there to enable serious, in-depth looks at the dangerous mental health problem plaguing this character, because a d20 and a couple modifiers and some randomly generated table results can't do that. And they shouldn't be asked to either.

The interesting stuff comes from the role-play of the creative elements that don't have an easy way to mechanically analyze. From the stuff that people may have different and personal experiences of and should not be subjected to random die rolls or the opinions of other people on how some serious character fault should play out, even if that opinion stems from their lived experiences with such flaws. Two players and a GM should all be able to say: "We all have different viewpoints and experiences of how this played out, and there's no game rule telling you that you're not an alcoholic anymore just because you've been sober for 3 months, so if Bob says he still struggles with it, Bob still struggles with it, and it's up to Bob to decide the severity of that in the name of good roleplay."

[NichG]

This at the very least requires players who are willing to explore, reveal and answer difficult things about themselves.

Because if they can't do that, they're not going to do their character justice when they have to answer those questions.


It doesn't necessarily have to be something intimate like that. Even just things where it's not a decision they ever envisioned having the freedom to make, which are relatively easily come by in a fantastical setting where you can make some of the things which are unavoidable IRL malleable. For example, if a character has the ability to choose the afterlife destination of the souls of those they slay, what do they do with that and what happens next? Those choices can't really hurt them, so they're free - if they want to grant mercy to some and punishment to others, it says something. If they inflict cruel joy on their most hated enemies - cruel, because it unmakes those things which motivated those enemies and erases that part of their identity - then it says something.



Which again, is frankly why I think games should keep "flaws" to mundane things. A bum leg. Poor eyesight, blah blah blah. They're not interesting and they're not supposed to be. They're there to give you a few extra character-creation points at the expense of some level of control or effectiveness in your roll. They're not there to enable serious, in-depth looks at the dangerous mental health problem plaguing this character, because a d20 and a couple modifiers and some randomly generated table results can't do that. And they shouldn't be asked to either.

The interesting stuff comes from the role-play of the creative elements that don't have an easy way to mechanically analyze. From the stuff that people may have different and personal experiences of and should not be subjected to random die rolls or the opinions of other people on how some serious character fault should play out, even if that opinion stems from their lived experiences with such flaws. Two players and a GM should all be able to say: "We all have different viewpoints and experiences of how this played out, and there's no game rule telling you that you're not an alcoholic anymore just because you've been sober for 3 months, so if Bob says he still struggles with it, Bob still struggles with it, and it's up to Bob to decide the severity of that in the name of good roleplay."

Yep, I agree with all of this.

[False God]

It doesn't necessarily have to be something intimate like that. Even just things where it's not a decision they ever envisioned having the freedom to make, which are relatively easily come by in a fantastical setting where you can make some of the things which are unavoidable IRL malleable. For example, if a character has the ability to choose the afterlife destination of the souls of those they slay, what do they do with that and what happens next? Those choices can't really hurt them, so they're free - if they want to grant mercy to some and punishment to others, it says something. If they inflict cruel joy on their most hated enemies - cruel, because it unmakes those things which motivated those enemies and erases that part of their identity - then it says something.

I didn't mean the things had to be personal about the player, I meant more that the player needs to be capable of the sort of internal self-reflection that the character would be going though. A person who is IRL incapable or unwilling to look inwards is unlikely going to be able to make those same sort of self-reflections for their character.

[Vahnavoi]

Ehhhh.... I don't think I agree with this. Most of my Fate games are about the situation as much as anything, but the situation is tightly bound up with the characters.

Define "tightly bound". If you don't, I invoke heuristic of "anything preceding 'but' is pointless" and conclude that instead of disagreeing with me, you have provided a case in point.


That line comes really close to the GNS "exploration of theme, exploration of situation, exploration of whatever Gamist is called" stuff.

The question was asked without thinking of GNS, it can be answered without thinking of GNS. The similarity is coincidental and the comparison useless.

[Tanarii]

Similarly, if you watch a movie like Guardians of the Galaxy, Drax has the flaw "Revenge on Ronin", which gets in the way of the character's goal of keeping the macguffin safe. But when you watch that, it doesn't hit too close to home, even if you invest in the character's goals. Watching is a passive experience, you haven't been putting any energy into achieving the goals the way you would be in an RPG campaign, seeing another player shoot the party in the foot like that can be a deeply unpleasant experience if that's not the sort of game you've signed up for, even if it follows perfectly from the sort of other media the game is drawing inspiration from.
Watching anything with Guardians in it (excluding maybe Rocket) was painful exactly because they take turns carrying the idiot ball. Ultimately resulting about the often complained about part where Starlord dooms half of all life because he can't wait 10 seconds to pistol whip Thanos.

[Max_Killjoy]

Watching anything with Guardians in it (excluding maybe Rocket) was painful exactly because they take turns carrying the idiot ball. Ultimately resulting about the often complained about part where Starlord dooms half of all life because he can't wait 10 seconds to pistol whip Thanos.


Seeing a spoiler with that moment is one of many reasons I gave up on the MCU after the second Avengers movie. (Also, not wanting to watch the MCU repeat the comics debacle of Civil War, the shark-jumping bit with Falcon surviving flak bursts going off a few feet away at the end of Winter Soldier, etc.)

These "but we need it for the drama" moments that rely on shoving an idiot ball into the character's hands is exactly why I loath narrative causality, ie "But the plot demands this happens so anything it takes to make it happen is necessary and justified, no matter how much it damages character, coherence, or continuity".

And that's exactly the sort of thing I see certain systems and gaming approaches embrace enthusiastically.

[Vahnavoi]

I don't think this extended discussion of non-game fiction is doing any of you any good. These stories are not outputs of any game, so you cannot reverse-engineer any actual game from them. If you want to complain about tropes, at least complain about tropes that actually recur in games you play.

[Tanarii]

These "but we need it for the drama" moments that rely on shoving an idiot ball into the character's hands is exactly why I loath narrative causality, ie "But the plot demands this happens so anything it takes to make it happen is necessary and justified, no matter how much it damages character, coherence, or continuity".But it's totally in character! The Guardians are idiots. (With one exception.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think this extended discussion of non-game fiction is doing any of you any good. These stories are not outputs of any game, so you cannot reverse-engineer any actual game from them. If you want to complain about tropes, at least complain about tropes that actually recur in games you play.


I would way that the attempt to reverse-engineer things so that games DO output these kinds of stories and tropes (that is, they emulate authorial fiction) IS part of this discussion, however, and affects what sorts of flaw-systems (if any) will result in satisfying games for different players.

[Vahnavoi]

Let me rephrase, then:

It doesn't make sense to discuss that in context of tropes you already hate. F.ex., it makes no sense to discuss whether "Revenge of the Ronin" flaw would be a good way emulating Drax in a game meant to emulate Guardians of the Galaxy, if you dislike Guardians of the Galaxy.

Pick things you want to emulate, then it makes sense to talk about whether some rule paradigm makes sense for emulating those things or not.

[Quertus]

I'm not sure exactly how it relates to the thread, but…

I'm a fan of games with *lots* of right answers, where flaws like "greedy" motivations like "starving family" simply encourage certain characters towards certain right answers over others.

Where morons who hold the idiot ball (like Drax or Starlord) get murdered by their party for initiating PvP (preferably *before* they can betray the party). And the player asked to try again, not rewarded for being idiots with meta-currency.

Where the story is about what the characters choose to do, not intimately and unrealistically bound by contrivance to their backgrounds and personalities.

Where the players can explore what their flaws various personality traits mean to them.

Where even after the fact, it's entirely likely that no-one - not even the GM - can point to a single choice as having been the "optimal" answer. But some of the choices the players made were probably suboptimal. And that's fine.

Where players & characters (and GM) can attempt to divine one another's flaws personality if they want to do so, but it isn't a default expectation of the game - unknown black boxes are the expected/default state.

Where flaws are a fun part of this complete breakfast.

[Satinavian]

Over the last decade, the whole "get metacurrency by playing out character traits to your detriment" handling of flaws has been quite popular and those rules have been incorporated in a lot of games.

I don't like the approach at all.

When it is just one of several options to get the metacurrency, it usually ends up ignored. People play out the characters as they see fit but forget to invoke the rule for metacurrency if something bad happens because of that.

If it is the only way to get the metacurrency, you will get inbalances between characters that have flaws that can easily be invoked and those that realy heavily on opportunity. You will also have people running constantly low and being kinda forced to take every opportunity that presents itself or even make them, especcially if the use of metacurrency is considered in balancing encounters or is used to fuel various safeguards (ignore fumbles, prevent death etc.). That will necessarily lead to idiot-ball-play.

Then there is always the question how detrimental the flaw in a given situation really is and whether this is worth a point or not. That can't be handled by a rule, it always needs to be judged at case-by-case level considering all the previous cases for fairness. It is a huge, annoying hassle.

[Vahnavoi]

Where morons who hold the idiot ball (like Drax or Starlord) get murdered by their party for initiating PvP (preferably *before* they can betray the party). And the player asked to try again, not rewarded for being idiots with meta-currency.

[ ... ]

Where even after the fact, it's entirely likely that no-one - not even the GM - can point to a single choice as having been the "optimal" answer. But some of the choices the players made were probably suboptimal. And that's fine.

Hoo boy...

Consider: what you profess to want is a metagame where non-co-operative behavior is altruistically punished, even pre-emptively, yet at the same time you want a game where it is really hard to know whether co-operation actually pays off before or after!

How would you prevent this from leading to a situation where hindsight bias causes players to call out and punish other players (by murdering their characters) for errors that were not obviously errors when they were made?

[NichG]

Hoo boy...

Consider: what you profess to want is a metagame where non-co-operative behavior is altruistically punished, even pre-emptively, yet at the same time you want a game where it is really hard to know whether co-operation actually pays off before or after!

How would you prevent this from leading to a situation where hindsight bias causes players to call out and punish other players (by murdering their characters) for errors that were not obviously errors when they were made?

I take the point to be that there's a separation between Infinity War sorts of setups where certain courses of action will have clearly bad consequences but the idiot ball means you do it anyways for drama, and cases where the situation is complicated enough and consequences are interleaved enough and even values and goals are ambiguous enough that you have some freedom to act in lots of different ways without any one of those choices being clearly stupid. That seems entirely consistent to me, that you can have a character who e.g. doesn't take extra overtime to make 10% more money in order to instead pursue relaxation activities with friends, but if they were told that their overtime was going to be critical to saving the world they could say 'yeah alright, I really value work/life balance a lot, but being able to be alive is part of work/life balance too'.

[Max_Killjoy]

I take the point to be that there's a separation between Infinity War sorts of setups where certain courses of action will have clearly bad consequences but the idiot ball means you do it anyways for drama, and cases where the situation is complicated enough and consequences are interleaved enough and even values and goals are ambiguous enough that you have some freedom to act in lots of different ways without any one of those choices being clearly stupid. That seems entirely consistent to me, that you can have a character who e.g. doesn't take extra overtime to make 10% more money in order to instead pursue relaxation activities with friends, but if they were told that their overtime was going to be critical to saving the world they could say 'yeah alright, I really value work/life balance a lot, but being able to be alive is part of work/life balance too'.

Real life example, the difference between "We always take vacation this time of year, but since this one-in-1000-years astronomical event critical to understanding X will happen during that time, we'll make an exception" and "We always take vacation this time of year, humanity will just have to miss out on this observation" on the part of Spanish astronomers in the 1990s.

[Vahnavoi]

Neither of these are answer for how you'd handle hindsight bias.

[Cluedrew]

To Vahnavoi: Make character flaws that are problematic but not murder worthy. I mean if you look at laws that deal with punishments, I believe you will find that there are a large number of things societies have deemed to be problems but not worthy of execution. The context is different but I think the general idea holds: the severity of the problem can be adjusted.

[Vahnavoi]

Still not an answer to how you'd deal with hindsight bias.

Let's use a rough law example, since you recommend looking at law: a storm is coming. It has an unknown chance of breaking a bridge. A town chooses to not hire anyone to reinforce the bridge.

Is this town liable for negligence?

Suppose you come to this scenario as jury member, with the after knowledge that the bridge did not break, but that it had a 0.1% chance of breaking.

Does this change your answer?

Suppose you come to this scenario as a jury member, with the after knowledge that the bridge DID break, with same 0.1% chance of it happening.

Does this change your answer?

[NichG]

Still not an answer to how you'd deal with hindsight bias.

Let's use a rough law example, since you recommend looking at law: a storm is coming. It has an unknown chance of breaking a bridge. A town chooses to not hire anyone to reinforce the bridge.

Is this town liable for negligence?

Suppose you come to this scenario as jury member, with the after knowledge that the bridge did not break, but that it had a 0.1% chance of breaking.

Does this change your answer?

Suppose you come to this scenario as a jury member, with the after knowledge that the bridge DID break, with same 0.1% chance of it happening.

Does this change your answer?

Following your example, you don't even really need to care about hindsight bias since if those probabilities are right, it would only be an issue 0.1% of the time anyhow. And if out of 1000 world saving adventurers who fail at their job, one of them is falsely blamed, that's kind of irrelevant when held against the 1000 times the world is getting destroyed to get to that point.

Not to mention that Quertus' example was almost explicitly saying that there should be a minimum threshold of obviousness and responsibility - below those thresholds, there's no fault; above that threshold, don't mess around. Pretty simple. Or to put it another way, if the guy responsible for making the bridge safe decides to indulge his pyromancy and play with thermite around the support beams, even if the bridge doesn't collapse that guy doesn't get to keep that position.

[Vahnavoi]

@NichG: mixing examples does not help in any way. "World saving adventurer" is not a relevant concept to the bridge trial. I also do not see how the conclusion you lead with ("you don't need to care about hindsight bias since it would only be an issue 0.1% time anyhow") follows from anything. The bridge will break only 1 times out of 1000, that doesn't mean the town will get sued only 1 times out of 1000 - that depends on the initial assessment of whether the town can be held liable when the risk is still unknown and whether hindsight bias changes how people answer that question.

As for what you say about Quertus's argument, the threshold is not well defined, and again: the whole point of my question is that hindsight bias changes where people place that threshold after the fact.

[Max_Killjoy]

@NichG: mixing examples does not help in any way. "World saving adventurer" is not a relevant concept to the bridge trial. I also do not see how the conclusion you lead with ("you don't need to care about hindsight bias since it would only be an issue 0.1% time anyhow") follows from anything. The bridge will break only 1 times out of 1000, that doesn't mean the town will get sued only 1 times out of 1000 - that depends on the initial assessment of whether the town can be held liable when the risk is still unknown and whether hindsight bias changes how people answer that question.

As for what you say about Quertus's argument, the threshold is not well defined, and again: the whole point of my question is that hindsight bias changes where people place that threshold after the fact.

The line Quertus drew was quite clear.

You're focusing in on the most extreme cases, where hard decisions make bad law.

[Vahnavoi]

Mine's a significantly less extreme than the other examples of heroes trying to save the world. Never mind that the supposed extremeness of the individual example is a red herring, since hindsight bias affects all decisions.

[Max_Killjoy]

Mine's a significantly less extreme than the other examples of heroes trying to save the world. Never mind that the supposed extremeness of the individual example is a red herring, since hindsight bias affects all decisions.

In hindsight, I shouldn't have bothered engaging in a discussion about supposed biases that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Oh well.

[Cluedrew]

Still not an answer to how you'd deal with hindsight bias. [...] Does this change your answer?No, why would it? It was the right choice if the reinforcing the bridge cost more than 1000 times losing the bridge does and was the wrong choice otherwise (actually there are both right choices if its exactly 1000 times).

I mean there are a bunch of other complexities, like how is cost measured, what if different people are paying the different amounts of the cost. But none of those things have to do with hindsight, not in a particularly notable way.

If that doesn't answer your question I'm going to need a longer and more detailed explanation of why its a problem. Dice rolling and the variation in results is an iconic part of the hobby too so I don't think the concept of something going wrong is new.

[Vahnavoi]

No, why would it? It was the right choice if the reinforcing the bridge cost more than 1000 times losing the bridge does and was the wrong choice otherwise (actually there are both right choices if its exactly 1000 times).

You did not actually answer all three questions, because you are only considering right and wrong for the cases where the chance of the bridge breaking is already known. I'd say that itself is an example of hindsight bias: you are only deciding right and wrong based on the knowledge acquired after-the-fact.

So let's go back to the first question:

Let's use a rough law example, since you recommend looking at law: a storm is coming. It has an unknown chance of breaking a bridge. A town chooses to not hire anyone to reinforce the bridge.

Is this town liable for negligence?


If that doesn't answer your question I'm going to need a longer and more detailed explanation of why its a problem. Dice rolling and the variation in results is an iconic part of the hobby too so I don't think the concept of something going wrong is new.

The point is not about something going wrong; it is about the fact that people change how obvious they think something going wrong is in hindsight. So if you want to encourage players to punish obvious errors, how do you stop them from punishing errors that were not obvious errors going in? I could also direct you to the tangent about naive consequentialism in the agency thread. Long story short, there are people who are fine with a 50/50 chance if they win, but are not fine with it if they lose: the perceived rightness or wrongness of an action actually changes based on the result of the random function.

[Max_Killjoy]

Q wasn't talking about unforeseen or random outcomes, he was talking about situations in which the player handing their character the idiot ball "for drama" or whatever is clearly and unambiguously going to result in setback or failure for the other characters and their players.

"But hindsight bias" is an irrelevant distraction from the discussion at hand.

[Vahnavoi]

{Scrubbed}

[NichG]

@NichG: mixing examples does not help in any way. "World saving adventurer" is not a relevant concept to the bridge trial.

The bridge trial is already mixing examples then, since the originating example was from Infinity War in which a character put their own anger above 50% of life in the universe - that was the example Quertus said would be good if all the team-mates pre-emptively killed him.


I also do not see how the conclusion you lead with ("you don't need to care about hindsight bias since it would only be an issue 0.1% time anyhow") follows from anything. The bridge will break only 1 times out of 1000, that doesn't mean the town will get sued only 1 times out of 1000 - that depends on the initial assessment of whether the town can be held liable when the risk is still unknown and whether hindsight bias changes how people answer that question.

As for what you say about Quertus's argument, the threshold is not well defined, and again: the whole point of my question is that hindsight bias changes where people place that threshold after the fact.

The threshold doesn't need to be well defined though, and people can place things all over the place. If the structure of the campaign and the way the game's mechanics work create a big neutral space where lots of choices have ambiguous value, you'll get a separation in practice which will make it hard for people to agree 'that guy should be killed' when that guy's choices are minor personal expressions, and where agreement will only be in place for large scale idiot ball moments like the originating example. The inability to agree is a feature, not a flaw - it protects behaviors which are merely idiosyncratic rather than being actively harmful.

[Max_Killjoy]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Don't presume that anyone who disagrees with you must not know or understand correctly.

[Talakeal]

Where morons who hold the idiot ball (like Drax or Starlord) get murdered by their party for initiating PvP (preferably *before* they can betray the party). And the player asked to try again, not rewarded for being idiots with meta-currency.

Where the story is about what the characters choose to do, not intimately and unrealistically bound by contrivance to their backgrounds and personalities.


And here is where we get into trouble, as it means that the game is effectively over, and exactly the sort of thing I put flaws in the game to avoid.

Most players will either leave the group or get revenge after an incident like this.

And then the DM will usually also take a side; either protecting the murdered PCs with plot armor and / or expelling the other players for PvP, or side with the murderers and magically adjust the world so that there are no consequences either for commiting cold blooded murder OR for being down two exceptionally skilled and competent party members in a dangerous situation.

[Cluedrew]

Is this town liable for negligence?The town council should not be executed.

That isn't a direct answer to your question I'll admit but its the point I was making. Even if the town was negligent in the bridge's upkeep that doesn't mean anyone has to die. Players make mistakes, characters make mistakes, you can correct or prevent them with much less drastic measures than killing PCs. I think that was actually a terrible example on Quertus's part but maybe there was a particular reason for it, you would have to ask them. Or you can let it happen and figure out how to continue the campaign in the wake of that mistake.

[Quertus]

Where morons who hold the idiot ball (like Drax or Starlord) get murdered by their party for initiating PvP (preferably *before* they can betray the party). And the player asked to try again, not rewarded for being idiots with meta-currency.

There's systems that reward idiocy at the level of Drax and Starlord. I prefer games where players keep the idiot ball at home, where such PCs die for their PvP (preferably before it does damage). Where players and characters debate between the various *good* answers that their personality traits drive them to pursue / avoid. Where the question of, "is it worth it to fix the bridge" doesn't have a single right answer - but, if it did, people wouldn't hold the idiot ball to choose the wrong one.

I prefer games where players who mistake hindsight bias for this level and type of idiot ball receive similarly swift and decisive educations regarding the differences between such.

Characters whose personalities drive them to care about or ignore slim chances of loss of human life? Both are arguably valid stances; even afterwards, some may well not be able to assign an *optimal* answer from the knowledge they had to work with. However, not seeking to increase their knowledge may well qualify as holding the idiot ball - or, at least, legally-persecuted failure to perform due diligence to properly evaluate a potential threat, regardless of the actual outcome.

I prefer games where probabilistic PvP - like summoning a storm while someone else's character is on the bridge, or the psyker risking summoning a daemon - have agreed-upon (in)tolerance level heuristics, and the players behave accordingly.

EDIT: but yes, all of that is kinda into the weeds compared to how obviously idiot ball PvP both Drax and Starlord were.

[Quertus]

And here is where we get into trouble, as it means that the game is effectively over, and exactly the sort of thing I put flaws in the game to avoid.

Most players will either leave the group or get revenge after an incident like this.

And then the DM will usually also take a side; either protecting the murdered PCs with plot armor and / or expelling the other players for PvP, or side with the murderers and magically adjust the world so that there are no consequences either for commiting cold blooded murder OR for being down two exceptionally skilled and competent party members in a dangerous situation.

You can't use flaws to legitimize bad behavior. If the group has a "no PvP" rule, Drax and Starlord are out of line. If they cannot choose differently, execute the characters, the player can make new ones.

If your flaws make you break the social contract, then they're bad flaws. If the combination of the flaw and the scenario make you break the social contract, then at least one of those needs to change.

Note that "choose differently" *also* includes the GM changing reality: "sorry, Drax, cosmic storms prevent communication" (says his player - this isn't just the GM's responsibility to come up with ideas for how to fix things when they are broken).

But, again, it's about building a culture - in this case, one of sacrificing the character (literally), to preserve the game, and the personality of the character.

EDIT: note that the important part of the table culture is the focus on fixing the problem - which includes the willingness to do so by any means necessary - including and perhaps especially the player noticing the problem, and thwarting or sacrificing their own character.


The town council should not be executed.

That isn't a direct answer to your question I'll admit but its the point I was making. Even if the town was negligent in the bridge's upkeep that doesn't mean anyone has to die. Players make mistakes, characters make mistakes, you can correct or prevent them with much less drastic measures than killing PCs. I think that was actually a terrible example on Quertus's part but maybe there was a particular reason for it, you would have to ask them. Or you can let it happen and figure out how to continue the campaign in the wake of that mistake.

If "the town council" was a PC, and another PC was on the bridge, and the group had agreed that all probabilistic PvP counted as PvP, and was therefore verboten? Then yes, I prefer games where the town council should be executed (again, preferably before they risk killing the PC with the storm) if they cannot choose differently, and its player should roll up a new PC. They should not receive meta-currency rewards for violating the social contract.

Note, of course, that there's a lot of conditions on that.

The reason for the extreme example is to continue the concept of building a table culture, of drawing clear lines of what has priority over what, and why.

But I wasn't talking about probabilistic PvP, or hindsight bias - I was talking about clear cases of extremes of both holding the idiot ball and PvP.

[Satinavian]

Preemptive PC-murder is nearly always the wrong answer, especially when the motivation supposedly is "prevent PvP". If you did that, it is likely you were the problem in the first place.

That said, kicking PCs out of the group when the group doesn't work or they are utterly untrustworthy or moral dissonances make cooperation unlikely is often quite a good and appropriate answer.

[Quertus]

Preemptive PC-murder is nearly always the wrong answer, especially when the motivation supposedly is "prevent PvP". If you did that, it is likely you were the problem in the first place.

That said, kicking PCs out of the group when the group doesn't work or they are utterly untrustworthy or moral dissonances make cooperation unlikely is often quite a good and appropriate answer.

Kicking Drax off the team does not prevent him from contacting Ronin; saying "Drax dies of a heart attack" does.

If the group cannot find a way for the character to be played true to the character that doesn't initiate PvP by holding the idiot ball (then something is wrong, because you should by definition never have to hold the idiot ball to remain in character, and) simply declare the character dead. Problem solved, no PvP.

[NichG]

This is probably a 'missing the forest for the trees' line of argumentation for a lot of people here. Consider an alternate, simplified phrasing:

"It's good to have a game system/setting/table culture where 'playing characters suboptimally' is treated as distinct from betrayal, both without recognizing arguments that some minor suboptimal play (whether driven by character portrayal, the player's level of investment or ability,e tc) should be considered betrayal, and without recognizing arguments that things which deeply harm the party's shared values or goals should be tolerated because they are just 'playing the character's flaws'."

What 'not tolerating' means, what the group does in response to betrayal or how they resolve it isn't really relevant to the core idea.

[Satinavian]

Kicking Drax off the team does not prevent him from contacting Ronin; saying "Drax dies of a heart attack" does.

If the group cannot find a way for the character to be played true to the character that doesn't initiate PvP by holding the idiot ball (then something is wrong, because you should by definition never have to hold the idiot ball to remain in character, and) simply declare the character dead. Problem solved, no PvP.

Now it is a heart attack ? As in "The DM declares a character dead because he doesn't like the character after accepting him" ?

Doesn't get any better, honestly.

[Vahnavoi]

There's systems that reward idiocy at the level of Drax and Starlord. I prefer games where players keep the idiot ball at home, where such PCs die for their PvP (preferably before it does damage). Where players and characters debate between the various *good* answers that their personality traits drive them to pursue / avoid. Where the question of, "is it worth it to fix the bridge" doesn't have a single right answer - but, if it did, people wouldn't hold the idiot ball to choose the wrong one.

I prefer games where players who mistake hindsight bias for this level and type of idiot ball receive similarly swift and decisive educations regarding the differences between such.

*groan*

Since this apparently needs to be done in order for you to stop being sidetracked by examples:

Your argument that Starlord and Drax obviously had an idiot ball is itself hindsight bias, based on knowing how the entire movie turned out and how previous movies with the same tropes turned out. (It's not a particularly glaring example. I've seen much lesser actions by movie characters be called holding an idiot ball, for much weirder meta-knowledge reasons.) Because you dislike those tropes, the only games you are reverse-engineering from your non-game example are those that prescribe following the tropes, a type of game you already dislike, while failing to consider how these kind of situation play out in games that don't.

So imagine a game that does not prescribe tropes. That includes tropes such as "you can't beat the big bad in a duel early" or "pistol whipping a downed opponent will give him a second wind, because there's still 30 minutes of movie left". Imagine going into the situation not knowing a reason to exclude the related actions from a list of "good answers".

Then, after the fact, another player starts going "I knew it all along this was a bad idea. Why? Why did you hold the idiot ball?". But you realize that, wait a minute, they didn't have any more information than you when the choice was actually made. They couldn't have "known it all along"! The "clear and extreme case of holding an idiot ball" wasn't clear or extreme, yet people started arguing it was after-the-fact.


I prefer games where probabilistic PvP - like summoning a storm while someone else's character is on the bridge, or the psyker risking summoning a daemon - have agreed-upon (in)tolerance level heuristics, and the players behave accordingly.

So what do you do when a player changes how they apply the heuristic based on after-the-fact knowledge? Because that's what I'm asking about.

Yes yes, you weren't talking managing hindsight bias. I am, because put together, your gaming preferences suggest an environment where it would come up.

[Anonymouswizard]

What if the GM decided to have Ronin attack, and offered Drax the Compel of "you called him here, thus causing tension with the rest of the geoup' or 'can I stand in the street bellowing a challenge at Ronin?'

Fate and similar systems only have to force characters to hold the idiot ball if the players decide to play it like that. It's more than reasonable to have all your Compels come from circumstances and problematic relationships.

Plus Compel fishing will eventually cause the rest of the group to lock you in a box so they can get on with the story. Fate Points aren't that vital anyway.

It's like how Vampire: the Masquerade had the Agony Munchkin. Sure, it's a thing, but eventually the rest of the group starts focusing on more interesting things than your cascade of setbacks.

[Cluedrew]

(All of these are primarily directed at Quertus.)

On Quertus: I remember Quertus talking about the inspiration for Quertus. And as I recall one of the primary inspirations was being unable to make tactical decisions. And that is the primary mistake Drax made, what if he had defeated Ronin like he assumed he would? Has Quertus ever caused trouble over a tactical error?

On Execution: Why murder our go to solution here? What about "holding them back" or something like that.

On Town Counsel: You would have to ask Vahnavoi for who the town counsel was supposed to represent, if anyone, originally but I know in my post I was treating them as a stand-in for anyone, real or fictional (player or character), who can make mistakes. I'm just to assume you would want to adjust your answer based on that.

[False God]

This is probably a 'missing the forest for the trees' line of argumentation for a lot of people here. Consider an alternate, simplified phrasing:

"It's good to have a game system/setting/table culture where 'playing characters suboptimally' is treated as distinct from betrayal, both without recognizing arguments that some minor suboptimal play (whether driven by character portrayal, the player's level of investment or ability,e tc) should be considered betrayal, and without recognizing arguments that things which deeply harm the party's shared values or goals should be tolerated because they are just 'playing the character's flaws'."

What 'not tolerating' means, what the group does in response to betrayal or how they resolve it isn't really relevant to the core idea.

Further, dealing with Drax doesn't get to the heart of the issue: the player Dave.

Dave who made Drax. Dave who decided this is how Drax behaves. Dave who continued to make this choices until it got so bad that the DM had to step in and stop this mess because Drax wasn't responding to the other characters pleas to end his stupidity, nor was Dave listening to the other players.

Deal with Dave, and Drax will be dealt with. Deal only with Drax and Dave can simply go make Starlord instead.

[Max_Killjoy]

Your argument that Starlord and Drax obviously had an idiot ball is itself hindsight bias,


No.

It's not.

Contacting Ronin and giving away the location of the group and the stone was obviously a betrayal and obviously stupid.

Starlord hitting Thanos in that situation was obviously sabotaging the plan that had almost worked.

No hindsight required, anyone watching either film immediately knew the action was going to make things far worse. And that's the sort of situation we're talking about, where it's obvious to everyone, including the player of the Drax or Starlord character, that this is a decision that will screw over everyone else, and they do it anyway, "because drama".

[Max_Killjoy]

It's like how Vampire: the Masquerade had the Agony Munchkin. Sure, it's a thing, but eventually the rest of the group starts focusing on more interesting things than your cascade of setbacks.


(As an aside, the writers of Vampire very much insisted that the Agony Munchkin was doing it right, and everyone else was doing it wrong. I base this on multiple direct Usenet conversations with them at the time.)

[Quertus]

Now it is a heart attack ? As in "The DM declares a character dead because he doesn't like the character after accepting him" ?

Doesn't get any better, honestly.

In a good group, Drax's player declares him dead rather than initiate PvP by holding the idiot ball.

In a good group, the table culture is clear, and the players abide by it. They don't try to sneak around the social contract with claims of, "that's what my character would do" - they uphold the culture, at any cost.

I'm not sure why everyone being on the same team, and working together to make a good game, should be such a strange concept.


This is probably a 'missing the forest for the trees' line of argumentation for a lot of people here. Consider an alternate, simplified phrasing:

"It's good to have a game system/setting/table culture where 'playing characters suboptimally' is treated as distinct from betrayal, both without recognizing arguments that some minor suboptimal play (whether driven by character portrayal, the player's level of investment or ability,e tc) should be considered betrayal, and without recognizing arguments that things which deeply harm the party's shared values or goals should be tolerated because they are just 'playing the character's flaws'."

What 'not tolerating' means, what the group does in response to betrayal or how they resolve it isn't really relevant to the core idea.

Sounds right.

I suppose, were I to try to break my stance down, it would be…

I prefer games where the table culture is clear and being a Determinator is an individual choice playing a flaw - or any other personality choice - is an individual choice and the table culture not just mandates "no PvP", but involves players actively working together to make a good game and players have bought in to the culture to the extent that they will sacrifice their characters to maintain the culture

As opposed to Determinator or go home; players get beanies for PvP; players get beanies for holding the idiot ball; players subvert the table culture with "it's what my character would do"

While one could derive "'playing characters suboptimally' is treated as distinct from betrayal", or that "deeply harming the party's shared values or goals" counts as PvP from my breakdown, I agree that your version is much clearer than mine on those counts.

[Anonymouswizard]

(As an aside, the writers of Vampire very much insisted that the Agony Munchkin was doing it right, and everyone else was doing it wrong. I base this on multiple direct Usenet conversations with them at the time.)

Oh sure, but I'm fairly certain that it was also one of those games where the authors didn't follow their claims (I'm also fairly certain it wasn't universal). It's also gloriously contradictory with the fluff where most vampires don't do that (and instead let their Humanity slip a few steps).

[Tanarii]

(As an aside, the writers of Vampire very much insisted that the Agony Munchkin was doing it right, and everyone else was doing it wrong. I base this on multiple direct Usenet conversations with them at the time.)
I am unable to find any results for "Agony Munchkin". Any other names it might have gone by?

Or a detailed explanation ;)

[Max_Killjoy]

I am unable to find any results for "Agony Munchkin". Any other names it might have gone by?

Or a detailed explanation ;)

Let's see if I can sum up the attitude:

"Vampire is a game of Personal Horror. If you're not engaged in Telling a Story of Personal Horror and not focused on exploring the downward spiral of your character until they succumb to the Beast or otherwise become utterly inhuman, then you're Doing It Wrong. Anything else is just superheroes-with-fangs, and you're a bad player who is mis-using the game we've designed. If your character isn't often suffering and often failing, then you shouldn't be playing Vampire, you should be playing one of those vapid unsophisticated hack-and-slash kiddie RPGs".

[Tanarii]

Explains why they published Exalted. Clearly for if people were going to insist on using their system and Doing it Wrong they needed to provide a version of it where the PCs were gods. :smallamused:

[Anonymouswizard]

I am unable to find any results for "Agony Munchkin". Any other names it might have gone by?

Or a detailed explanation ;)

Max_Killjoy explained the designer's views pretty well. Because the game encouraged rewarding roleplaying, with I believe the horrendous idea of individual RPXP, this lead to a certain type of player.

So roleplaying gets you the Bennies. The game designers say that the right way to lay is Tortured Soul. Therefore the way to get ALL THE BENNIES is to spend as much game time as possible bemoaning your existence and this accursed beast you've become forever to walk untouched by the sun. Bonus points if you take up other player's screen time with your agony.

Hence Agony Munchy. I don't know if it's a normal VtM term, but I thought it got the point across.

I think the designers actually wanted you to mix the bemoaning with firebombing Elysium to spite Vampire Dad. But I was like ten when Masquerade died, my experience is secondhand.

[Max_Killjoy]

Max_Killjoy explained the designer's views pretty well. Because the game encouraged rewarding roleplaying, with I believe the horrendous idea of individual RPXP, this lead to a certain type of player.

So roleplaying gets you the Bennies. The game designers say that the right way to lay is Tortured Soul. Therefore the way to get ALL THE BENNIES is to spend as much game time as possible bemoaning your existence and this accursed beast you've become forever to walk untouched by the sun. Bonus points if you take up other player's screen time with your agony.

Hence Agony Munchy. I don't know if it's a normal VtM term, but I thought it got the point across.

I think the designers actually wanted you to mix the bemoaning with firebombing Elysium to spite Vampire Dad. But I was like ten when Masquerade died, my experience is secondhand.

There was definitely an element of that as well, there was a strong punk-anarchy-nihilism vibe particularly from some of the more edgelordy authors, and the Anarchs and Sabbat kept becoming a bigger and bigger deal.

[Quertus]

*groan*

Since this apparently needs to be done in order for you to stop being sidetracked by examples:

Your argument that Starlord and Drax obviously had an idiot ball is itself hindsight bias, based on knowing how the entire movie turned out and how previous movies with the same tropes turned out.


No.

It's not.

Contacting Ronin and giving away the location of the group and the stone was obviously a betrayal and obviously stupid.

Starlord hitting Thanos in that situation was obviously sabotaging the plan that had almost worked.

No hindsight required, anyone watching either film immediately knew the action was going to make things far worse. And that's the sort of situation we're talking about, where it's obvious to everyone, including the player of the Drax or Starlord character, that this is a decision that will screw over everyone else, and they do it anyway, "because drama".

I'm with Max on this one.

I've gamed with some dumb people in my time, but I cannot imagine a player declaring the actions that Drax or Starlord took, and convincing the group that they simply didn't realize that they are betraying the party and/or being monumentally stupid. I just don't know anyone dumb enough that that statement would be believable.

In fact, in the case of Starlord, any action not actively helping the party is kinda sus. Even Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, who might well feel completely out of their element in such a scenario, would still at least watch the skies and/or set up Teleportation traps to prevent surprise attacks from reinforcements. Now, hindsight bias may say that such actions aren't actually useful, but that's *still* better than Starlord.

This is the kind of action I can *only* imagine happening in a game where the system is rewarding them for holding the idiot ball, the GM is offering them a 'compel', etc - not something any reasonable player would defend as anything other than intentionally hurting the party.


So what do you do when a player changes how they apply the heuristic based on after-the-fact knowledge? Because that's what I'm asking about.

Yes yes, you weren't talking managing hindsight bias. I am, because put together, your gaming preferences suggest an environment where it would come up.

If I recognized it, and cared? I'd call them out on it.

But, more likely, IME, supposed "hindsight bias" is actually a red herring for what's really going on with the group social dynamic, and *that's* what I would be focusing on.


(All of these are primarily directed at Quertus.)

On Quertus: I remember Quertus talking about the inspiration for Quertus. And as I recall one of the primary inspirations was being unable to make tactical decisions. And that is the primary mistake Drax made, what if he had defeated Ronin like he assumed he would? Has Quertus ever caused trouble over a tactical error?

Caused trouble? Interesting turn of phrase.

Quertus has been suboptimal because he is tactically inept. Quertus has been The Load because he is tactically inept (and for other reasons - his total contribution over ~10 levels outside "transportation" could have been replaced with a bag of flour). But, as far as my senile and biased mind can remember and evaluate, he has never been actively detrimental / a net negative.

More of an issue IMO is that Quertus is an academic, not an adventurer. He focuses on learning about the monsters more than on actually defeating them. Still, he'll only take lesser monsters (like Merilith or Balor), that he knows his safeguards are sufficient to allow him to safely hold for experimentation and dissection. He won't try to keep BBEG level foes like Atropos or Phyrexia around for study (despite how much he could learn).

That said, I would be perfectly willing to roleplay him as a net negative. For example, suppose I recognized that the game had a "modern" theme, and knew that those objects could be fuel barrels, I would not let that affect my RP of Quertus, and still have him Fireball the enemies hiding behind the barrels. (Or, you know, would have, in the past, back when Quertus didn't have experience with modern worlds / back before he became more likely than me to notice such details).

(As to, "what if it worked?", dumb plans do sometimes work. That doesn't make them less dumb, and certainly not less of a betrayal.)


On Execution: Why murder our go to solution here? What about "holding them back" or something like that.

Excellent question.

Of course those other options are… preferred solutions. But I prefer groups whose members wouldn't bat an eye at the notion of murdering their own character to preserve the fun of the game.


On Town Counsel: You would have to ask Vahnavoi for who the town counsel was supposed to represent, if anyone, originally but I know in my post I was treating them as a stand-in for anyone, real or fictional (player or character), who can make mistakes. I'm just to assume you would want to adjust your answer based on that.

I prefer realities where… nah, not going there :smallwink:

I don't care what it's *supposed to be* a stand-in for - either my answer applies, or its not a very good stand-in. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And only slightly less well known is this: never mix fantasy and reality when death is on the line!


Further, dealing with Drax doesn't get to the heart of the issue: the player Dave.

Dave who made Drax. Dave who decided this is how Drax behaves. Dave who continued to make this choices until it got so bad that the DM had to step in and stop this mess because Drax wasn't responding to the other characters pleas to end his stupidity, nor was Dave listening to the other players.

Deal with Dave, and Drax will be dealt with. Deal only with Drax and Dave can simply go make Starlord instead.

Although this is often good advice, in this particular case, Dave is the one (or one of the ones) trying to deal with Drax.

[icefractal]

Thing is, holding the idiot ball is only sabotaging the party if the opposition the party faces is impartial / deterministic.

Meaning that when the party manages to avoid Ronin, the GM is just like "welp, you get the stone and proceed on without difficulty" rather than "Ronin found you, for a different reason" or "You run into this other foe, not Ronin but about equally strong".

And while I enjoy that style (world over story), IME it's not even close to the majority of tables out there. If the opposition is indeterminate and will adapt to present the desired degree of challenge, then having your character's flaws cause trouble is really just reflavoring the same amount of opposition / obstacles.

Example: Champions -
In every Champions campaign I've played, Hunted was basically a free complication, at least at the base level. Because in most superhero genres, the heroes are mainly reactive and someone is going to show up and start trouble regardless. And (again, in the games I've played) the amount of trouble was "as much as will be entertaining to play through", it wasn't based on, like, a simulation of how much resources various villain groups had. Therefore Hunted just means that sometimes the foes who will show up are the particular foes that have a grudge against you.

[Max_Killjoy]

Thing is, holding the idiot ball is only sabotaging the party if the opposition the party faces is impartial / deterministic.

Meaning that when the party manages to avoid Ronin, the GM is just like "welp, you get the stone and proceed on without difficulty" rather than "Ronin found you, for a different reason" or "You run into this other foe, not Ronin but about equally strong".

And while I enjoy that style (world over story), IME it's not even close to the majority of tables out there. If the opposition is indeterminate and will adapt to present the desired degree of challenge, then having your character's flaws cause trouble is really just reflavoring the same amount of opposition / obstacles.

Example: Champions -
In every Champions campaign I've played, Hunted was basically a free complication, at least at the base level. Because in most superhero genres, the heroes are mainly reactive and someone is going to show up and start trouble regardless. And (again, in the games I've played) the amount of trouble was "as much as will be entertaining to play through", it wasn't based on like, a simulation of how much resources various villain groups had. Therefore Hunted just means that sometimes the foes who will show up are the particular foes that have a grudge against you.

IME, and especially when I'm running, if the players do a good job avoiding giving away their position, the "Ronin" character doesn't automatically track them down "for reasons".

Few things will ruin my enjoyment of a campaign faster than the realization that our decisions and actions and such don't really have any affect on what happens next.

[Satinavian]

Agree with Max_Killjoy

Also i avoid the superhero genre in RPGs because way too many genre conventions rely on shutting down your brain.

[Anonymouswizard]

Agree with Max_Killjoy

Also i avoid the superhero genre in RPGs because way too many genre conventions rely on shutting down your brain.

It's the same reason horror struggles, nobody in a game wanders off to get picked off by the killer. I find that most people are more willing to except it with superheroes than with horror, but it's still not my favourite genre.

Now we can solve this, partially by finding examples of the genre that work better as games. So for horror you probably want to lean more towards Aliens than Alien. I'm sure we can find relatively influential superhero series that find some method other than the idiot ball. Or just go the Wild Talents route of making holding the idiot ball incredibly dangerous and work out how that changes the stories.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to avoid the whole Guardians of the Galaxy thing, because I haven't watched it.

I'm someone for whom "being smart" and "not doing stupid things" is (theoretically) in character. PhD in hard sciences etc. Yet, if you watched a movie of my life, it would be blatantly obvious that there were lots of times I was "holding the idiot ball." Doing things that I knew even then were stupid and counterproductive. Because other facets of my personality and experience made them more feasible than the "smart" thing. Or because I just didn't think about it and reacted instead of acting deliberately.

This experience has led me to believe that some accusations of "holding the idiot ball" (in the sense of "acting dumb against character for narrative sake") are overblown. And that everyone, everywhere, makes dumb decisions that they knew (or should have known) were dumb, not even dealing with retrospective clarity here. So if there's a character who never does anything dumb, that's probably a sign of being a Mary Sue/Marty Stu. Or at least a super flat character without any depth. You can do dumb things without being a betrayer, in character or not.

Tropes are like software design patterns--they're names for behavioral patterns that are reflections of things we see. In fiction, they get drawn more black-line than in real life, because fiction is fiction. Tropes are not bad. A game without tropes would be much harder to comprehend, since tropes are one major way people easily assimilate new situations. And subverting/inverting tropes is still using them.

That said, chasing tropes is like insisting that you insert software design patterns everywhere. They'll come up when they come up. No need to force them.

To be honest, most of the times a player has said something like "this is a really dumb move, but I got to do it," it's really not been that dumb of a thing to do. It's something totally in character and usually either the right thing or at least a neutral thing to do. Bravery and curiosity are not dumb things.

Playing the super-cautious, super-paranoid person gets boring for everyone, at least in my experience. Games that incentivise spending all the time planning so that the actual execution is trivial are, to me, unplayable. I want games that encourage acting. Do something now, let the "narrative"[1] move along. More smaller actions, not one big "solve everything" action. But that's personal preference.

[1] in the most broad "the set of things that happen" sense.

[Telok]

To be honest, most of the times a player has said something like "this is a really dumb move, but I got to do it," it's really not been that dumb of a thing to do. It's something totally in character and usually either the right thing or at least a neutral thing to do. Bravery and curiosity are not dumb things.

Being someone who has literally heard "This fight is easy so I'm going to pull in the next one." or variations, at the table during D&D fights that saw multiple characters on the verge of going down before the words were uttered... I'm not as forgiving or as willing to assume "in character" from any player who hasn't previously demonstrated significant roleplay. And the people who do roleplay don't seem to be the ones pulling the really dumb moves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Being someone who has literally heard "This fight is easy so I'm going to pull in the next one." or variations, at the table during D&D fights that saw multiple characters on the verge of going down before the words were uttered... I'm not as forgiving or as willing to assume "in character" from any player who hasn't previously demonstrated significant roleplay. And the people who do roleplay don't seem to be the ones pulling the really dumb moves.

That last sentence militates against the opposition to playing your flaws, at least in my mind. If most of the really dumb moves are by people thinking OOC about mechanical things, then the trope-led "bad behavior" isn't as much of an issue as it's being made out to be.

Having said that, I don't like having to be in an author stance as a player. So many of the heavily "narrative-focused" games leave me cold. But that's for a separate reason.

[Talakeal]

@Quertus:

I have to say, the whole idea of executing characters for idiotic decisions sounds like one of the most dysfunctional gaming groups I have ever heard of, and coming from me that is saying something!

It sounds especially weird coming from you, the guy who talks about the virtues of playing potted plants and tactically inept wizards, and who is, in the other thread, trying to coach me about running a low stress game (I have a hard time thinking of a more stressful situation than one where every IC decision could be a capitol offense!).

Honestly, the whole thing seems like a very convoluted and passive aggressive way to tell people that they aren't allowed to play with you unless they share your exact same gaming preferences.


But, let me say quite a few things in no particular order:

First, you say "bad behavior". Unless you are actually out to ruin the other player's good times (what would be termed "griefing" in a video game) I don't really think you can take objectively bad actions. Instead, what I think you are referring to are actions which fall into one of two categories, neither of which are bad on their own:

The first is putting the needs of the individual (either in or out of character) above those of the group.

The second is having a conflict between the two sides of the TTRPG hobby; the tactical war-game side and the role-playing side. In the first case you are trying to work together to overcome an obstacle, and in the second you are trying to explore how a given character would react in a given situation. IMO the entire idea behind flaws is to smooth over the conflict between these two modes of play, neither one of which are "Bad behavior" on their own.

Now, obviously, these can cause problems if taken to the extreme, but in normal play you need to balance them, and not everybody has the same balance point.


PVP is a spectrum, and its not something with a hard line. You can commit PVP through action or through inaction, and it can be direct or indirect. Lot's of people consider playing a sub-optimal characters to be a form of PVP because it indirectly puts the other characters in harm's way by reducing ability to save them. In my last game, for example, I had to players actually come to blows in the middle of a dungeon due to an IC argument, and neither player was upset by it (although a third player was, because their injuries suffered during the battle led to the parties defeat at the hands of the villain later in the session). Likewise, I have had a player consider giving NPCs a "gratuity" on top of a negotiated fee to be PvP as it was wasteful of party funds and did lead to bad blood between the players. And, as someone else mentioned in a previous thread, who is the one committing PvP if player A is about to chop up player B's family with his axe and player B sunders the axe?


Further, executing your allies isn't ethical or logical in most situations, either in or out of character.

Obviously, negligence is not a capitol offense in most modern moral or legal systems. Executing an ally is likely to be likewise evil and or illegal in whatever setting the game takes place in, and executing an ally who is nominally highly skilled and highly loyal while in a dangerous world is pretty stupid, and could easily lead to everyone getting into far more trouble than the initial "idiot ball" offense.

And then OOC, there are going to be bad feelings all around. You are almost certain to lose a player or players over it, although which one(s) probably depends on who the DM and the person hosting the game side with. There is a good chance that very hurtful things will be said, and you may well end friendships over it. There is also a non-zero chance of property damage or physical violence; I am not saying that getting into a fist fight over a game is ever appropriate, but I am saying that I have seen people beaten up over far less.


Also, you use the term idiot ball, but I really don't think that is appropriate either. An "idiot ball" moment is acting out of character for the sake of the plot; a "just playing my character" moment is actually the complete opposite of that, its refusing to act out of character for the sake of the game.


Now, the Guardians of the Galaxy is a story about a bunch of emotionally damaged outlaws forced to work together by circumstance. The whole thing is a metaphor for dysfunctional families, and is played up for both drama and comedy. Drax is stupid, suicidal, and obsessed with revenge. It makes perfect sense for his character to challenge Ronan without his allies consent (and its early enough in the movie that they aren't really even allies yet, they just have a temporary cease-fire for conveniance). Likewise, Star Lord is immature and overly emotional, it makes perfect sense to me that he would lash out violently without thinking of the consequences when finding out the woman he loved was murdered. To use a real life analogy, when my brother found out his GF was cheating on him, he punched his steering wheel hard enough that he broke both the wheel and his hand; and he is far more mature and less emotional than Starlord is.

The Guardians are not the Avengers or the Justice League. The whole premise is that they are a group of emotionally and morally compromised misfits having wacky adventures, if that is not what you are signing up for, don't play a game like guardians of the galaxy, make it clear upfront what sort of characters are appropriate. Ironically, by threatening death for stepping out of line, all you have done is turn the Guardians of the Galaxy into the Suicide Squad; essentially the same thing but only working together because of the thread of execution rather than any true sense of loyalty.


Now, I am really, really, curious about how you would handle the two following situations:

1: The PCs go to execute one of their own for reckless behavior, and he fights back and ends up defeating the rest of the party and is now the last man standing.
2: A PLAYER makes a stupid decision OOC, that ends up with their character doing something that is IC reckless and worthy of execution.

[Cluedrew]

In a good group, Drax's player declares him dead rather than initiate PvP by holding the idiot ball. [...] I'm not sure why everyone being on the same team, and working together to make a good game, should be such a strange concept.The fact I recognise that allies who will stick together shoulder-to-shoulder through thick and thin is a valid mode of play doesn't mean its the only one. I've played in several campaigns where the PCs did try to kill each other, let alone make things generally worse for the party. Who says PCvPC is against the social contract?

And honestly, have you watched the Guardians of the Galaxy there is a lot of this. Because the Guardians are... a barely functional group of sort-of-heroes. Gamora gets them arrested, Groot sounds the alarm early, Rocket sends Peter/Starlord on a wild goose chase, Drax has to be talked out of being murdering Gamora, Peter goes back for a set of headphones and then they escape from prison. If you expect "we promise optimal to at least neutral" play from these people I have no idea why.


Quertus has been suboptimal because he is tactically inept. Quertus has been The Load because he is tactically inept (and for other reasons - his total contribution over ~10 levels outside "transportation" could have been replaced with a bag of flour). But, as far as my senile and biased mind can remember and evaluate, he has never been actively detrimental / a net negative.I'm not talking about a net negative, I'm talking about making a single action that makes things worse. I guess that is covered by actively detrimental but those two things should not be confused. Someone can be an active detriment in a moment but be a positive overall. Maybe Quertus's failings are far enough into the inaction space that he has actually made things worse, having not been there I can't really say.


I have to say, the whole idea of executing characters for idiotic decisions sounds like one of the most dysfunctional gaming groups I have ever heard of, and coming from me that is saying something!Yup. Especially since there also seems to be this assumption that I am either playing a cold-blooded murderer or will break character to do so. Seriously, what happened to the generic "stop them" why do we have to escalate to murder for everything? Too much D&D, that's it, it rots the brain.

[Telok]

That last sentence militates against the opposition to playing your flaws, at least in my mind. If most of the really dumb moves are by people thinking OOC about mechanical things, then the trope-led "bad behavior" isn't as much of an issue as it's being made out to be.

I should perhaps be precise about this. If a character comes out of char-gen in session zero with the 'impulsive flaw', nobody raises any objections, and a mechanic or rp has them act... well, impulsively. I'm fine with that. The activity I see much much more of is generally in D&D, where/when there aren't any functional 'flaw mechanics' in play, and people pull idiotic moves for on ooc and mechanical reasons based on the game rules. "We get more xp and loot for harder fights" is a D&Dism I've seen in action as an excuse to literally take the hard path, murder every single living thing in a 'dungeon', or let/cause 10k+ people die in attempts to kill a perceived bbeg.

[Satinavian]

To be honest, most of the times a player has said something like "this is a really dumb move, but I got to do it," it's really not been that dumb of a thing to do. It's something totally in character and usually either the right thing or at least a neutral thing to do. Bravery and curiosity are not dumb things.
If a player says such a thing (and i hear it regularly), it means one of two things

a) "I know i am going to torpedo group progress/our PCs common goals for personall roleplaying. Are you OK with that ?"
b) "I want to distance myself from my character here. I am fully aware how stupid/wrong it is what my character is about to do. Don't think i am too dumb to recognize it."

And then it is usually done. And usually it is really in character and quite dumb. Sometimes it only adds unnecessary risks and all goes well, sometimes bad things do happen including character deaths. And that is fine.
But players do such roleplaying regularly even without promted by rules offering them rewards for it. If playing out your character is something that is done at the table than it is done, even if detrimental to progress.


Playing the super-cautious, super-paranoid person gets boring for everyone, at least in my experience. Games that incentivise spending all the time planning so that the actual execution is trivial are, to me, unplayable. I want games that encourage acting. Do something now, let the "narrative"[1] move along. More smaller actions, not one big "solve everything" action. But that's personal preference.Jupp. And i like those. There is nothing that feels as rewarding as a mountain of preparation resulting in a smoth execution. Personal preferrences.

[Glorthindel]

I'm with Max on this one.

I've gamed with some dumb people in my time, but I cannot imagine a player declaring the actions that Drax or Starlord took, and convincing the group that they simply didn't realize that they are betraying the party and/or being monumentally stupid. I just don't know anyone dumb enough that that statement would be believable.

In fact, in the case of Starlord, any action not actively helping the party is kinda sus. Even Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, who might well feel completely out of their element in such a scenario, would still at least watch the skies and/or set up Teleportation traps to prevent surprise attacks from reinforcements. Now, hindsight bias may say that such actions aren't actually useful, but that's *still* better than Starlord.


I am on the other side on this one, particularly in the point of Starlord. Sure, what he did "wasn't helping", but the only reason it was clearly going to undo the whole plan is the film still had 20 minutes left. And not helping might have been his role in that phase of the plan, to avoid him getting in the way of Iron Man and Mantis (note, Nebula was also not helping, so it wasn't only Starlord who was standing around doing nothing). In fact, him shouting at Thanos could easily have distracted him from fighting off Mantis and Iron Man, so might have been the right choice. Sure, it wasn't, but we are back to that main point of hindsight.

As for "betraying the group", his 'mistake' wasn't entirely his mistake at all - he only acted as he did because Nebula (again, who also "wasn't helping") and Mantis (who, as the "core element" of the plan, really shouldn't have wasted time and brain power getting involved) did a point-by-point explanation to Starlord of what must have happened, triggering him off. If Starlord going ape-**** was obviously going to blow the plan, both of them are clearly also culpable, because they should have known to keep their traps shut at that critical moment.

[MoiMagnus]

I am on the other side on this one, particularly in the point of Starlord. Sure, what he did "wasn't helping", but the only reason it was clearly going to undo the whole plan is the film still had 20 minutes left. And not helping might have been his role in that phase of the plan, to avoid him getting in the way of Iron Man and Mantis (note, Nebula was also not helping, so it wasn't only Starlord who was standing around doing nothing). In fact, him shouting at Thanos could easily have distracted him from fighting off Mantis and Iron Man, so might have been the right choice. Sure, it wasn't, but we are back to that main point of hindsight.

As for "betraying the group", his 'mistake' wasn't entirely his mistake at all - he only acted as he did because Nebula (again, who also "wasn't helping") and Mantis (who, as the "core element" of the plan, really shouldn't have wasted time and brain power getting involved) did a point-by-point explanation to Starlord of what must have happened, triggering him off. If Starlord going ape-**** was obviously going to blow the plan, both of them are clearly also culpable, because they should have known to keep their traps shut at that critical moment.

Trying to assign indirect responsibility is quite hard. First because in fiction, contrary to RPGs, it's the same person that pilot all the different characters. Second because in this case, everything was "predicted" by Dr Strange, which means that:
(1) Everyone was trusting Dr Strange that the plan was going to work
(2) Dr Strange needed this battle to be a failure [because the scenarists said so]

[Max_Killjoy]

Trying to assign indirect responsibility is quite hard. First because in fiction, contrary to RPGs, it's the same person that pilot all the different characters. Second because in this case, everything was "predicted" by Dr Strange, which means that:
(1) Everyone was trusting Dr Strange that the plan was going to work
(2) Dr Strange needed this battle to be a failure [because the scenarists said so]

Which works in authorial fiction, kinda, if you're OK with predetermination... but doesn't translate well to an RPG (outside of a few narrow storygaming approaches that turn gaming into collective storycrafting).

[Quertus]

The fact I recognise that allies who will stick together shoulder-to-shoulder through thick and thin is a valid mode of play doesn't mean its the only one. I've played in several campaigns where the PCs did try to kill each other, let alone make things generally worse for the party. Who says PCvPC is against the social contract?

why do we have to escalate to murder for everything? Too much D&D, that's it, it rots the brain.

Now, I know I'm getting senile, but I'm pretty sure I prefaced the post that started this sub-discussion with something like, "I prefer games where…". So you don't get to pull the "other things are valid" / "BadWrongFun" card on me discussing and explaining my preferences - at least not without *verifying* the scope of my statements first, as many of my statements are limited to that scope. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

So "PCvPC is against the social contract" is part of the scope / context of the conversation.

Now, why do we have to escalate to murder? That's the wrong question. Understanding the *right* question goes hand in hand with understanding why this is a low-stress paradigm.

Imagine that you've got a player who is hyper paranoid about PvP - stresses out about it, gets panic attacks because of it, the works.

Now, imagine that they've found a group where they can actually relax, because they *know* that, the moment Drax's player realizes that he is set up to break the social contract and initiate PvP by calling Ronin, he'll work with the group (EDIT: and the whole group will work with him!) to find solutions to prevent this from happening, up to volunteering that Drax spontaneously dies of heart failure to prevent the action from occurring. Where they *know* that there are absolutely *no* obstacles that make PvP even a discussion, let alone a possibility.

Now imagine that they join a new group, and hear attitudes expressed in this thread.

Can you see how they might feel stressed?

So, the question isn't, "why do we have to escalate to murder"; the question is, "why does character death need to be on the table?".

And even that is only halfway there.

Because death isn't just "on the table", it has to cheap. Easy. Accepted at the drop of a hat. It has to be completely clear to everyone *exactly* how far everyone will go to make the game work.

It's a question of priorities.

I prefer a game where people have their properties straight. And those priorities place the health of the group over the life of a PC.

Yes, I'm creative enough to come up with *many* alternatives to "Drax drops over dead", even ignoring people who don't care about RP and personality. But I'm *willing* to let Drax die.

Not "for the story". Not "because railroad". But for the health of the group.

So, looking back at what I said,

I'm a fan of games… Where morons who hold the idiot ball (like Drax or Starlord) get murdered by their party for initiating PvP (preferably *before* they can betray the party). And the player asked to try again, not rewarded for being idiots with meta-currency.

Where flaws are a fun part of this complete breakfast.
Obviously I could have worded it better :smallredface:

And, if we're already resigned that Drax must die, because we simply cannot imagine a solution where he lives, I *do* like the visceral "Gamora and Starlord (or Rocket and Groot - I'm not picky) catch and murder a drunken Drax trying to radio Ronin" over him dropping dead of a heart attack.

So, what does this have to do with flaws?

Well, I prefer a gaming culture where everyone is free to run whatever personality they want. But where that will not cause problems, because *everyone* is *dedicated* to maintaining the social contract. And won't let trivialities (up to and including a character's life) get in the way.

Is that any clearer?

[Batcathat]

Well, I prefer a gaming culture where everyone is free to run whatever personality they want. But where that will not cause problems, because *everyone* is *dedicated* to maintaining the social contract. And won't let trivialities (up to and including a character's life) get in the way.

I've skimmed parts of the thread so maybe I've missed something, but I'm not sure I understand why "PC causes a situation where the PC dies" is a triviality and "PC causes a situation that puts the group in trouble" is something horrible? Is it just that the player's causing trouble for the entire group rather than just their own character?

(Oh, and will everyone please stop calling the poor guy Ronin. He might not be the MCU's most memorable villain but his name is Ronan).

[Quertus]

I'm not talking about a net negative, I'm talking about making a single action that makes things worse. I guess that is covered by actively detrimental but those two things should not be confused. Someone can be an active detriment in a moment but be a positive overall. Maybe Quertus's failings are far enough into the inaction space that he has actually made things worse, having not been there I can't really say.

Insects swarm the party. Quertus fireballs the party. Positive and negative effects, but a *net* positive.

A PC users a wish to become a Wizard "and everything that entails". Under me. Oh :smallamused: A very grouchy Quertus suddenly appears, and asks just who said what that resulted in him being summoned and compelled to teach. After a brief lecture, Quertus opts for "practical application" - ie, combat training. We find some rats. The Sorceress Armus iconically moves to protect casts Enlarge on the rats. She says that she did it so that they would be giant rats, and therefore vulnerable to the giant-slaying sword our bodyguard wields. *Facepalm* That's not how that works. Buffing our foes, net negative. (She's the only character I've met whose tactics even Quertus would facepalm over.)

Note, I can imagine a scenario where "fireball the party" does more harm than good. But where the plan, "fireball the party, then mass heal the party" is a net positive. So "net negative" shouldn't look at just a single action, or even necessarily a single character's actions, but a single conceptual action, a single plan.

[False God]

Insects swarm the party. Quertus fireballs the party. Positive and negative effects, but a *net* positive.

A PC users a wish to become a Wizard "and everything that entails". Under me. Oh :smallamused: A very grouchy Quertus suddenly appears, and asks just who said what that resulted in him being summoned and compelled to teach. After a brief lecture, Quertus opts for "practical application" - ie, combat training. We find some rats. The Sorceress Armus iconically moves to protect casts Enlarge on the rats. She says that she did it so that they would be giant rats, and therefore vulnerable to the giant-slaying sword our bodyguard wields. *Facepalm* That's not how that works. Buffing our foes, net negative. (She's the only character I've met whose tactics even Quertus would facepalm over.)
But there's a demonstrated misunderstanding of the term "giant" here. Is it a metagame term, referring only to creatures specifically tagged in the rules as "giant whatever"? Is it referring only to humanoid monsters known as "giants"? Or is it referring to anything that is much larger than it should normally be for *reasons*? Or perhaps the weapon only works on things that are considered giant, so it might cut through a giant problem but have no effect on Rodents of Unusual Size, since they're considered normal in the Fire Swamp.

By her logic, enlarging the rats, while making them more challenging, also makes them vulnerable to the McGuffin Giant-Slaying Sword.

*also, if this were 5E, enlarge is a concentration spell, so she could simply stop concentrating to end the effect. While a waste of a spell slot, an easy fix.

****Personally, I'd have allowed her trick to work. It makes the enemies more challenging, but also gives them a new weakness, which seems reasonably balanced to me, not really a net gain or a net loss IMHO. Plus, it sounds fun!

Still, there's an important distinction between "I didn't understand the use of the term 'giant' in this context." and "I summoned the Evil Lieutenant first chance I get when we're clearly unprepared for him because I've got the flaw 'Revenge' and 'Short-Sighted'."
-To be fair to Drax tho, getting his butt whooped by Ronan did make him realize the sheer difference in their power levels. While he still wanted to kill Ronan he realized his mistake and worked with the party to correct it. Which is fine storytelling.

While I hear the folks who don't like GotG for them being largely a gaggle of idiots, this moment can be one to learn from. Drax does the dumb, but Ronan is not genre savvy either, simply beating Drax within an inch of his life and dumping him in a pond of...something. In this case, the DM can do this as well since he's in charge of Ronan. Yes the party will take a serious setback to their plans, but if the DM runs Ronan as the arrogant, selfish, short-sighted, power-hungry person he is, Ronan will get all whiny as Thanos while the group recovers. Ronan will boast over Zandar before attacking, giving the party time to plan their attack. Ronan will approach slowly and ominously (in part because a ship that size takes time to land), giving the party to rally forces against him.

The DM has the opportunity to move the pieces in a believable manner that allows the party to recover from their setback and try again.

[Quertus]

I've skimmed parts of the thread so maybe I've missed something, but I'm not sure I understand why "PC causes a situation where the PC dies" is a triviality and "PC causes a situation that puts the group in trouble" is something horrible? Is it just that the player's causing trouble for the entire group rather than just their own character?

(Oh, and will everyone please stop calling the poor guy Ronin. He might not be the MCU's most memorable villain but his name is Ronan).

Ronin, Ronan, potato potahtoe. :smalltongue:

OK, fine, you caught me - I'm just stalling because I have no clue how to clear this up.

Hmmm… let me try this: Let's say you a player decides to join one of my games a group with a simple premise: no PvP. They are allowed to play whatever they want, so long as they follow that one Commandment.

The player builds a character, invests in their personality, etc. Then they come to a point in the game where their in-character action would be to initiate PvP.

But that's the one Commandment, that's the one thing that's forbidden.

So the group investigates whether the character can be played differently. No dice. What if he offered incentives to keep him alive, like money. Power, too - all he has and more. Anything he asks for. But no, the player feels that his character wouldn't accept it: "you are the six-fingered man. You killed my father, prepare to die."

What is he says, "no, Inigo, I am your father."? He was just confused by the traumatic event (oh, and his true name is Lucas)? The player rejects it, knowing enough about insanity to know that a) that's not the way that they've been role-playing their character, and b) it's not something that they care to roleplay. And besides, we look nothing alike!

Given to him to raise when you were too young to remember, and the Prince and/or King were big into prima nocte? Retcon that the PC never found out?

Now, one might say that obviously the problem is showing these two backgrounds. But perhaps the players thought that, with a theme of "acceptance and true love", it wouldn't be a problem. Only Inigo / Lucas just can't let this one go, and his player won't accept any option the party can come up with.

So the player removed his character.

Or perhaps this is easier to see from the other direction.

Perhaps when Inigo noticed the count's mutation, it was the count's player who felt that the count was very sensitive (and powerful, and accustomed to the perks and excesses of nobility), and would initiate PvP in response to the peasant's affront (because the player had never even considered that anyone would ever play a non-noble as a PC). Unable to find a way to reconcile this, he suggested being the villain of the other PC's story (which, with retcon tech, was changed from "the one-armed man" to "the six-fingered man" with scarcely a ripple), and they scripted how he died to prevent PvP.

Now, is this all just some fancy illusion, like the one people use when they cannot differentiate the GM playing the opposing NPCs, and the GM working against the players? Perhaps. Or perhaps both are best differentiated from their counterparts by the corresponding attitude.

The most literal answer to the question you asked is if one violates the social contract, and the other does not.

More specifically, the actions of Drax and Starlord constitute betraying / working against the party.

Put another way, if you've got a team working on a group project, and you've got the option to add an extra person who will be attempting to sabotage the project, do you add them?

[Batcathat]

Put another way, if you've got a team working on a group project, and you've got the option to add an extra person who will be attempting to sabotage the project, do you add them?

My answer depends on two factors, I think.

First of all... what is the context? If it's an important project at work than I will obviously not want to include someone attempting to sabotage. But if it's a game, where failure or near-failure can be just as entertaining as success? That's quite different.

Secondly, is this a one time thing, a reaction to extreme circumstances, or is it a constant issue? On a related (but I suppose technically third) note, how serious is the sabotage?

So, in conclusion... I suppose I can't really give a straight answer to the question.

[Cluedrew]

To Quertus: I read your stuff and I am aware you know other styles are possible but that assumption seem to be creeping into your answers anyways. However instead of getting into that (or why I still think even fictional murder is problematic, but I might circle back to that) your asking the wrong question got me thinking.
I think we are all asking the wrong question. The question is not "what is appropriate for PCs to do in a game" because that is going to vary with the group, system, campaign and more. Instead, whatever your answer to that question, what can character flaws in a system help your do regarding that.

So for you the answer to: How do character flaws help Drax? Not applicable, Drax is too disruptive of a character and probably shouldn't be played in the first place. On the other hand, I - assuming I'm in the right mood - would probably find it useful just for the heads-up.

And if this angle makes any sense we can go further with it.

[Vahnavoi]

I'm with Max on this one.

I've gamed with some dumb people in my time, but I cannot imagine a player declaring the actions that Drax or Starlord took, and convincing the group that they simply didn't realize that they are betraying the party and/or being monumentally stupid. I just don't know anyone dumb enough that that statement would be believable.

In fact, in the case of Starlord, any action not actively helping the party is kinda sus. Even Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, who might well feel completely out of their element in such a scenario, would still at least watch the skies and/or set up Teleportation traps to prevent surprise attacks from reinforcements. Now, hindsight bias may say that such actions aren't actually useful, but that's *still* better than Starlord.

This is the kind of action I can *only* imagine happening in a game where the system is rewarding them for holding the idiot ball, the GM is offering them a 'compel', etc - not something any reasonable player would defend as anything other than intentionally hurting the party.

I can imagine it, because I can imagine different information going in than going out.

For a case like Drax's, it's simple: on the balance of probabilities, the player thinks their plan is just as likely to work than whatever other plan - an easy conclusion to jump to if the other plans have sufficient number of risks and unknown factors too. They think they can win, and if they win, the whole group wins; on the flipside, if they lose, it's not a greater loss to the group than any other loss.

For a case like Star Lord's, it's slightly more complex. Remember the scene's prefaced by Dr. Strange divining the future. Conspicuously, Dr. Strange, the guy with most information, doesn't try to stop Star Lord. This entire string of events is imaginable in a game set to your preferences: Star Lord's player asks Dr. Strange's player to stop him, and Dr. Strange's player tells him to just go ahead, because it's already accounted for. It's accurate to the degree that Strange and Star Lord are conveniently removed from play (they both get snapped, remember) as temporary penalty, only to be returned when other players have a reason to think maybe they weren't full of it. :smalltongue:

The trick to both is that even when a game allows for multiple game paths, you only see one carried out. This is especially pronounced for the latter kind of situation. You never get to see a version where Drax wins (or get to know the probability for it), you never get to see all the bad futures Dr. Strange discarded in favor of letting Star Lord take the fall. In case like Star Lord's, it quickly turns into a question of trust, because agents with congruent values can still take different actions if they have different information. So you see Star Lord screwing up, but you also see Dr. Strange, who by all reason should've seen this coming, not stopping Star Lord. So do you trust Strange and presume there's a reason to let Star Lord off the hook? The argument for trusting Strange can be better in that moment than not trusting, even if it later turns out Strange's prophecy was full of it.


If I recognized it, and cared? I'd call them out on it.

But, more likely, IME, supposed "hindsight bias" is actually a red herring for what's really going on with the group social dynamic, and *that's* what I would be focusing on.

Do you think calling them out would be sufficient?

Why do you think it's a red herring? I'd understand saying the bias is symptomatic of another problem, and then looking for that deeper problem, but that's distinct from a red herring.


Quertus has been suboptimal because he is tactically inept. Quertus has been The Load because he is tactically inept (and for other reasons - his total contribution over ~10 levels outside "transportation" could have been replaced with a bag of flour). But, as far as my senile and biased mind can remember and evaluate, he has never been actively detrimental / a net negative.

I can believe your character wasn't a net negative, I'm less inclined to believe no-one considered them such. Some players put opportunity costs in the same bracket as real costs, they would calculate his net contribution against projected contribution of a more useful character. I can easily imagine a bunch of such players professing to follow a game set to your preferences, who would always murder Quertus for being the load. They wouldn't stop you from making and playing Quertus II - it's your individual decision what personality to play - but they'd murder them too. :smallamused:

[Quertus]

To Quertus: I read your stuff and I am aware you know other styles are possible but that assumption seem to be creeping into your answers anyways. However instead of getting into that (or why I still think even fictional murder is problematic, but I might circle back to that) your asking the wrong question got me thinking.
I think we are all asking the wrong question. The question is not "what is appropriate for PCs to do in a game" because that is going to vary with the group, system, campaign and more. Instead, whatever your answer to that question, what can character flaws in a system help your do regarding that.

So for you the answer to: How do character flaws help Drax? Not applicable, Drax is too disruptive of a character and probably shouldn't be played in the first place. On the other hand, I - assuming I'm in the right mood - would probably find it useful just for the heads-up.

And if this angle makes any sense we can go further with it.

I agree that we're asking the wrong questions about flaws. I suspect that the right question is… complicated.

So, iirc (darn senility), the base premise is that the existence of flaws communicated to the players that "Determinator or go home" is not welcome, and therefore people can run flawed characters and still be sunshine and rainbows.

The full question of one of what is allowable behavior, and what are the acceptable conditions to allow conditionally-acceptable behavior.

Then, yes, one would look at what factors (rules, flaws, session 0, table culture, social contract, shock collars) factor in to facilitating creating an environment of acceptable behaviors, and what the costs & side effects are.

And, of course, different people with different mindsets, biases, and experiences can interpret and respond differently to the same inputs, so your system must be robust enough to accommodate error correction.

All in all, much more complex than flaws as a universal silver bullet for your Determinator woes.

As I've tried to explain earlier, I prefer a culture of role-playing, and responsibility to the group, to resolve such issues. To me, "flaws" is simply a minigame; the implementation of which determines whether it is a fun, meh, annoying, or actively detrimental one.

"Get build points for describing how you're not the Determinator"? Fun. "Get beanies for holding the idiot ball and betraying the party" or "encouraged or forced to violate the social contract"? Actively detrimental.


I can imagine it, because I can imagine different information going in than going out.

For a case like Drax's, it's simple: on the balance of probabilities, the player thinks their plan is just as likely to work than whatever other plan - an easy conclusion to jump to if the other plans have sufficient number of risks and unknown factors too. They think they can win, and if they win, the whole group wins; on the flipside, if they lose, it's not a greater loss to the group than any other loss.

Drax's player was monumentally stupid: had they stayed behind and called and challenged Ronan after the party left, it's a much lesser loss condition - they help the party either way.

And talk of Drax "winning" does nothing to change the nature of the betrayal.


Why do you think it's a red herring? I'd understand saying the bias is symptomatic of another problem, and then looking for that deeper problem, but that's distinct from a red herring.

Eh, I meant what you said. If you pursue the symptom as its own end, is it not acting as a red herring? Or have I misused my words again?


I can believe your character wasn't a net negative, I'm less inclined to believe no-one considered them such. Some players put opportunity costs in the same bracket as real costs, they would calculate his net contribution against projected contribution of a more useful character. I can easily imagine a bunch of such players professing to follow a game set to your preferences, who would always murder Quertus for being the load.
Do you think calling them out would be sufficient?

Players (and GMs) who are ignorant get educated. Those who revel in their ignorance get a (verbal) clue-by-four.

Many of my groups, I'm the *tame* one compared to the reaming players would get for persisting in being that dumb. I've been blessed with friends who simply won't tolerate… people who refuse to learn.

So, whether it's hindsight bias, or measuring against a projected figure instead of a solid baseline (fine for "balance to the table", not for "net contribution"), the behavior is not likely to stand, as the group is unlikely to stand for it.

[Cluedrew]

"Get beanies for holding the idiot ball and betraying the party" or "encouraged or forced to violate the social contract"? Actively detrimental.This is why I keep calling attention to your assumptions about what is allowed in the social contract. Yes there is an "or" in the middle but play-style dependent things* and the generalised (in that we abstract over what the social contract is) elements of good table health are being put in the same box.

Also you appear to be equating all mistakes as holding the ball (type of ball does not matter), and not sure the out-of-character ones. Also you appear to be equating all mistakes that effect the rest of the party as betrayal. "Failure is betrayal." Maybe you just haven't talked about the middle ground but honestly I think that middle ground is where most of the interesting conversation is.

* OK, fairly common play-style things (depending on how you use party I agree with both of them personally) but still they aren't universal.


And talk of Drax "winning" does nothing to change the nature of the betrayal.I'm also going to point Drax can't betray people he is not allied with and he wasn't really part of the group yet. To the point I didn't even realise he was one of the Guardians of the Galaxy yet. Why would he be? He and the other four want to go in opposite directions relative to Ronan.

[NichG]

I'm also going to point Drax can't betray people he is not allied with and he wasn't really part of the group yet. To the point I didn't even realise he was one of the Guardians of the Galaxy yet. Why would he be? He and the other four want to go in opposite directions relative to Ronan.

Does that actually matter if, OOC, Drax is a PC?

I take the 'kill Drax' point to be in part that there's an assumption that due to OOC considerations PCs don't treat each other like expendable minions of the BBEG (and life is cheap in those movies, see e.g. the counter-mutiny massacre in GotG2). But sometimes that can be used by a player as shelter for doing things that, if not for that metagame relationship, would result in initiative rolled and lethal alpha strike without anyone at the table batting an eye.

Similarly if the system says 'play up your flaws' that can create a similar shelter for behavior that would make anyone else, IC, an enemy. Which in this case is being stated as a way to interpret flaw systems that Quertus would rather avoid, I think.

It's like with this hindsight thing - if the PCs get ambushed in the dead of night by someone going for a killshot, sure maybe they're actually a trainer who is trying to help them improve their alertness like Inspector Cluseau's assistant. But the PCs will naturally treat that like an assassination and respond accordingly.

[Tanarii]

A simple example of two flaws that don't work in most D&D or other games with a heavy combat focus, in that they break the typical social contract for those games:
- I am a coward and flee from danger
- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Even if they're mechanically enforced and a situational thing, they are problem flaws in many games

[Vahnavoi]

Drax's player was monumentally stupid: had they stayed behind and called and challenged Ronan after the party left, it's a much lesser loss condition - they help the party either way.

That part was already addressed in the argument you quoted.: "on the balance of probabilities, the player thinks their plan is just as likely to work than whatever other plan". In simplest terms, going in, the player doesn't think the others leaving first makes a difference. (Going out, it's still not clear if it would have made a difference. Again, that game branch is never seen and the probability is unknown. For the sake of argument, you can imagine a GM doing your own sealed envelope trick from the agency thread, revealing these strategies to be equivalent, with a better option that neither the movie nor us has brought up yet.)


And talk of Drax "winning" does nothing to change the nature of the betrayal.

In a stochastic game, it would be downright weird to not talk about that and claim it changes nothing. Are you rolling dice? Drawing cards? Working on incomplete information? If the equilibrium strategy for a game is unstable due to some random function, even a well-intentioned agent can have incentive to gamble on defection. More importantly, if there's disagreement over indistinct actions, there's incentive to "defect" just to get over a pointless argument.

A simpler example of indistinct choices: imagine a game where you check for to-hit and to-penetrate separately. You have apparent choice of two actions: accurate-but-light attack, with 80% chance to hit but 20% chance to penetrate, and inaccurate-but-heavy attack, with 20% chance to hit yet 80% chance to penetrate. You crunch the numbers and realize they are really just one action: do damage with 16% chance.

So suppose everyone's rooting for you to pick the first one, but you pick the second, and fail the roll. Everyone is appalled at you for choosing the less accurate option. Will you admit defection, or argue it literally didn't make a difference?

Now take that simple idea from the simple example and extrapolate it on the complex situation. What are you betraying? Party consensus? You want a game where there's room for individual decisions. If there's ever a time for that, I'd think it to be a case like this.

On the flipside, what is your party gaining, if they punish you? Your actions flow from available information, a dead character or two won't prevent you from doing this again in the future. Again, agents with congruent values can act differently when they have different information, so your actions aren't necessarily proof of deviating from group values.


Eh, I meant what you said. If you pursue the symptom as its own end, is it not acting as a red herring? Or have I misused my words again?

If you mean what I said, the argument is clear enough. Yes, a bias can arise from some other problem. I do still think the bias itself needs attention, because it's not clear those other problems are solvable.


Players (and GMs) who are ignorant get educated. Those who revel in their ignorance get a (verbal) clue-by-four.

Many of my groups, I'm the *tame* one compared to the reaming players would get for persisting in being that dumb. I've been blessed with friends who simply won't tolerate… people who refuse to learn.

So, whether it's hindsight bias, or measuring against a projected figure instead of a solid baseline (fine for "balance to the table", not for "net contribution"), the behavior is not likely to stand, as the group is unlikely to stand for it.

When I asked "Do you think calling them out would be sufficient?", I was still talking about hindsight bias, and not this other thing, so by putting my question at the end, you changed what's being asked.

To clarify: I'm skeptical calling people out does much to fix hindsight bias, because for most cognitive biases, knowing about them doesn't make you much better at avoiding them.

As for placing opportunity costs in the same bracket as real costs, that I'm fairly sure is a learned thing. People are normally quite bad at thinking like this. From a viewpoint of a group of such players, they would think you are dumb and unable to learn, should you insist on making a character like Quertus despite their repeated attempts at punishing you by murdering him. :smallamused:

This said, I do not endorse metagaming character creation opportunity costs, because I find it places undue restrictions on playable characters. I don't find it good gaming, I just don't think it can be attributed to ignorance, nor do I see it as obviously inconsistent with the kinds of games you prefer. Whether it'd be compatible with your friends is another thing.

[Quertus]

This is why I keep calling attention to your assumptions about what is allowed in the social contract. Yes there is an "or" in the middle but play-style dependent things* and the generalised (in that we abstract over what the social contract is) elements of good table health are being put in the same box.

Well, yes. Following the social contract is generally good for the health of the game, no?

Yes, air tends to be good for your health… unless you're, say, a fish. So there are different social contracts, different gaming cultures that might vary on certain features of what is good for the health of the game.

Still in a conversation prefaced with, "I prefer", still have the context of that particular gaming culture.


Also you appear to be equating all mistakes as holding the ball (type of ball does not matter), and not sure the out-of-character ones.

Well, now, I really ought to just say, "you're right", because the actual answer is… Hmmm… complex + "vague", not the kind of argument that the peanut gallery tends to latch onto positively.

So, instead of giving my *actual* reasons, I'll just punt and say that the context for my comments was players being handed beanies for suboptimal play producing otherwise incomprehensible behaviors.


Similarly if the system says 'play up your flaws' that can create a similar shelter for behavior that would make anyone else, IC, an enemy. Which in this case is being stated as a way to interpret flaw systems that Quertus would rather avoid, I think.

Very much so, yes.

I prefer a culture where flaws are not necessary to play a flawed character. Where (nearly) "play whatever you want" can result in me playing a Sentient Potted Plant who views things like "push buttons" and "move under own power" to be superpowers beyond his kin.

I recognize that, done wrong, given too much power to shape the culture, flaws can be a shield for otherwise bad behavior (as defined by the gaming culture).

I do not yet have a good heuristic for how to use flaws as anything but… Hmmm… a fun minigame, or a tool to attempt to (not so) subtly guide the shape of the character creation minigame & pursuant roleplay.

Gah. That wording doesn't exactly cover the various little buy-in / engagement / etc you get from personalizing your opposition in Hero/Champions. It's complicated.

[Max_Killjoy]

If I recognized it, and cared? I'd call them out on it.

But, more likely, IME, supposed "hindsight bias" is actually a red herring for what's really going on with the group social dynamic, and *that's* what I would be focusing on.


Honestly, that whole "hindsight bias" thing sounds like the sort of excuse a certain sort of player would come up with trying to deflect the (fully justified) displeasure of the rest of the players (and their characters).

[Anonymouswizard]

- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Yeah, pacifism was the one time I actually got a disadvantage/flaw vetoed. The game was less combat heavy than your average D&D game, but the GM explicitly said he didn't want any player to not participate because it could potentially take over an hour per fight.

As a side note, I think Quertus just isn't the kind of player who'd like Fate. Which is fine, but I'll note that Fate assumes a much more explicit social contract thanks to the session zero where you work out the important parts of the game and characters together, and even by default link your PC to two others. But if you don't like the kind of drama that brings up, just play something else.

[Willie the Duck]

A simple example of two flaws that don't work in most D&D or other games with a heavy combat focus, in that they break the typical social contract for those games:
- I am a coward and flee from danger
- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Even if they're mechanically enforced and a situational thing, they are problem flaws in many games

There are flaws which won't work in just about any scenario. 'I can't or won't engage in a primary game premise' is certainly one -- although something like Combat Paralysis or Resistible Cowardice (something like roll-vs-target number every round to be able to begin to act rationally in a fight) could be possible, depending on the rest of the game mechanics (losing the first 1-2 rounds would be effectively untenable in a game like D&D where victory is usually determined in the first 2-3). Pacifism/Cowardice wouldn't work in D&D, non-lawbreaking wouldn't work for Blades in the Dark, 'Refuses to disturb the dead' would make for a rough Ghostbusters game, and so forth. Flaws walk a number of fine lines. It can't (/shouldn't, I guess) be something that turns you into an absolute load for the rest of the group, yet it shouldn't be anything that won't come up either (the ur-example might be the GURPS oneshot where someone wants to take the Terminally Ill: months to live trait for the extra 100 points or similar).

[Satinavian]

A simple example of two flaws that don't work in most D&D or other games with a heavy combat focus, in that they break the typical social contract for those games:
- I am a coward and flee from danger
- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Even if they're mechanically enforced and a situational thing, they are problem flaws in many games
(Modern) D&D is not exactly made with those in mind and it is assumed that no one does it.

But it is not that you can't do it. Having some noncombattant supporter as part of the party could work just fine. You only have to account for it when balancing encounters and the player should be willing to be on the sidelines every fight. It is not really disruptive as such and can be a good option for players who are there for the roleplaying but couldn't care less about tactical combat.

I mean, it is not as if noncombattant hirelings/NPCs travelling with a party are super rare or problematic. Why shouldn't it work when one of them is a PC instead ?

[NichG]

Yeah, pacifism was the one time I actually got a disadvantage/flaw vetoed. The game was less combat heavy than your average D&D game, but the GM explicitly said he didn't want any player to not participate because it could potentially take over an hour per fight.

As a side note, I think Quertus just isn't the kind of player who'd like Fate. Which is fine, but I'll note that Fate assumes a much more explicit social contract thanks to the session zero where you work out the important parts of the game and characters together, and even by default link your PC to two others. But if you don't like the kind of drama that brings up, just play something else.


There are flaws which won't work in just about any scenario. 'I can't or won't engage in a primary game premise' is certainly one -- although something like Combat Paralysis or Resistible Cowardice (something like roll-vs-target number every round to be able to begin to act rationally in a fight) could be possible, depending on the rest of the game mechanics (losing the first 1-2 rounds would be effectively untenable in a game like D&D where victory is usually determined in the first 2-3). Pacifism/Cowardice wouldn't work in D&D, non-lawbreaking wouldn't work for Blades in the Dark, 'Refuses to disturb the dead' would make for a rough Ghostbusters game, and so forth. Flaws walk a number of fine lines. It can't (/shouldn't, I guess) be something that turns you into an absolute load for the rest of the group, yet it shouldn't be anything that won't come up either (the ur-example might be the GURPS oneshot where someone wants to take the Terminally Ill: months to live trait for the extra 100 points or similar).

At least for me, I wouldn't have any problems with someone playing a non-combatant or a coward as long as the GM was on board and we picked a setting/situation where it was reasonable. But I find that I would be hesitant about someone taking a mechanical flaw where they had to roll a check each round to act rationally. I guess its because in the former case, everyone else knows 'this person is not going to fight' and can plan around that whereas in the latter case you can't rely on them. I probably wouldn't try to veto it still...

But what I might veto would be if they picked the 'roll to act rationally' flaw and then on the meta level expected to be considered a core part of the party's combat lineup, asked to be involved in combat or combat-adjacent plans and got offended OOC when players didn't want to include them, etc. The issue to me would be on the one hand expecting something that would normally be reasonable because of metagame considerations, but on the other hand also acting to make it hard or annoying to provide that thing. Similarly asking for a random drifter to be quickly considered a trustworthy ally - reasonable at the metagame level; doing that but having planned in advance with the GM to actually be in the employ of the party's antagonists and planning a double-cross or having a flaw that forces (or justifies) them acting in untrustworthy ways e.g. stealing from the party, is abusing the metagame.

[Talakeal]

(Modern) D&D is not exactly made with those in mind and it is assumed that no one does it.

But it is not that you can't do it. Having some noncombattant supporter as part of the party could work just fine. You only have to account for it when balancing encounters and the player should be willing to be on the sidelines every fight. It is not really disruptive as such and can be a good option for players who are there for the roleplaying but couldn't care less about tactical combat.

I mean, it is not as if noncombattant hirelings/NPCs travelling with a party are super rare or problematic. Why shouldn't it work when one of them is a PC instead ?

Got me. But I have been kicked out of three separate groups for playing a pacifist.

[Batcathat]

Got me. But I have been kicked out of three separate groups for playing a pacifist.

I'm curious, was it the result of them wanting you to play something different and kicking you out for not doing it or was playing a pacifist some sort of instant kicking offense?

[Talakeal]

I'm curious, was it the result of them wanting you to play something different and kicking you out for not doing it or was playing a pacifist some sort of instant kicking offense?

The first time it was an instant kicking offense.

The second time they decided to "make me useful" by using me as a human shield and the group broke up due to the resultant bickering.

The third time was a bit more complicated; basically there was a monster that couldn't move and the rest of the party just ran past it without telling me, expecting me to solo it by plinking it to death with cantrips. When I told them I didn't have any offensive cantrips, they told me I was a useless mage and they wouldn't come back to help me, but, being a first level mage, I couldn't survive the AoO of joining them. This led to bickering which ended with me being told to roll up a new character or leave.

[Cluedrew]

Does that actually matter if, OOC, Drax is a PC?I thought about and yes it does. But I agree with your larger point that no in-character motivation can justify an action forbidden out-of-character.

But now I am going to ask you (and Quertus and anyone else) a question: If Guardians of the Galaxy was a strangely high budget campaign log, do you think Drax's action was forbidden out-of-character in that campaign?


Well, now, I really ought to just say, "you're right", because the actual answer is… Hmmm… complex + "vague", not the kind of argument that the peanut gallery tends to latch onto positively.I'd like your actual answer, although if you can work on it a bit that would be nice. I can handle complex but vague is a bit harder to work with. Or maybe just expand on the context story, that might be a good start.

I had some other replies but I think they are more effectively made but pointing you at the question above.

[Max_Killjoy]

I thought about and yes it does. But I agree with your larger point that no in-character motivation can justify an action forbidden out-of-character.

But now I am going to ask you (and Quertus and anyone else) a question: If Guardians of the Galaxy was a strangely high budget campaign log, do you think Drax's action was forbidden out-of-character in that campaign?

I'd like your actual answer, although if you can work on it a bit that would be nice. I can handle complex but vague is a bit harder to work with. Or maybe just expand on the context story, that might be a good start.

I had some other replies but I think they are more effectively made but pointing you at the question above.

I like GotG as a movie. In a movie, there are no players whose nights get ruined, no players whose plans for the situation or their characters get blown up, no TPKs to worry about.

But in a campaign, what Drax did was so clearly and openly, "screw everyone else, screw the other characters, screw the other players, screw our chances of success, screw the whole campaign, Drax is doing 'what Drax would do' right here and right now", that in any group I've ever been in, it would have caused open tension between players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see a few different types of pacifism, some of which are more of a problem in a D&D-like than others.

-1 : I seek out opportunities to start fights. This is the anti-pacifism option, and is frequently (but not always) a problem.
0: I'm fine with initiating violence, but don't seek it out. This is, I think, kinda the default. The neutral position.
1: I prefer to avoid violence where possible, but if the other ways have failed, I'll draw first. Not a problem (for me). In fact, it's my preferred position both as a DM and as a player.
2: I won't start anything, but will respond if myself or my party is assaulted without cause. Can be fine, but we're getting into the "you need to call this out at session 0" territory.
3: I will actively avoid violence, and will not willingly cause HP damage. Can be fine, as long as the player has the tools and mentality to contribute otherwise (buffing/debuffing/healing/etc). Certainly needs fair warning in advance.
4: I will actively avoid violence and will not take any action that harms another person. I will buff and heal my allies. Can be ok.
5: I will actively avoid violence and will not participate in violence in any way. Here we have a problem that will (IMO) require explicit and knowing approval from the rest of the party as well as the DM.
6: I will actively avoid violence and will actively seek to hamper/harm my allies if they start violence. This counts as being PvP for me. Not welcome in my games.

[Talakeal]

I see a few different types of pacifism, some of which are more of a problem in a D&D-like than others.

-1 : I seek out opportunities to start fights. This is the anti-pacifism option, and is frequently (but not always) a problem.
0: I'm fine with initiating violence, but don't seek it out. This is, I think, kinda the default. The neutral position.
1: I prefer to avoid violence where possible, but if the other ways have failed, I'll draw first. Not a problem (for me). In fact, it's my preferred position both as a DM and as a player.
2: I won't start anything, but will respond if myself or my party is assaulted without cause. Can be fine, but we're getting into the "you need to call this out at session 0" territory.
3: I will actively avoid violence, and will not willingly cause HP damage. Can be fine, as long as the player has the tools and mentality to contribute otherwise (buffing/debuffing/healing/etc). Certainly needs fair warning in advance.
4: I will actively avoid violence and will not take any action that harms another person. I will buff and heal my allies. Can be ok.
5: I will actively avoid violence and will not participate in violence in any way. Here we have a problem that will (IMO) require explicit and knowing approval from the rest of the party as well as the DM.
6: I will actively avoid violence and will actively seek to hamper/harm my allies if they start violence. This counts as being PvP for me. Not welcome in my games.

I would agree that five and six wouldn't work in a normal game and would need group buy in, assuming an action game like D&D. I was going for three in the above examples.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would agree that five and six wouldn't work in a normal game and would need group buy in, assuming an action game like D&D. I was going for three in the above examples.

I think some people, for whatever reason, default to thinking 5 or 6 when they hear "pacifist character." Hence the knee jerk reaction. Justified? Probably not.

[NichG]

I thought about and yes it does. But I agree with your larger point that no in-character motivation can justify an action forbidden out-of-character.

But now I am going to ask you (and Quertus and anyone else) a question: If Guardians of the Galaxy was a strangely high budget campaign log, do you think Drax's action was forbidden out-of-character in that campaign?


Pretty clearly not. It's also pretty clearly a PvP-ok campaign or at least one with OOC choreographed PvP (e.g. let's agree - my character will attack yours, lose, get taken prisoner, and that's how I'll join the group.)

That's kind of the thing - in this thread we ended up talking about personal preferences for how systems and groups handle character flaws. So it makes sense to me if someone says 'I don't like the kind of play characterized by what this other group does a lot of, so I want systems that handle flaws in a way that doesn't encourage or require that particular type of drama - but not in a way which forbids or punishes everything short of optimality either'

I don't know that I'd be 100% on the same page as Quertus about this as far as my own preferences, but I do feel like I can at least see the point and where it comes from.

[Willie the Duck]

But it is not that you can't do it. Having some noncombattant supporter as part of the party could work just fine. You only have to account for it when balancing encounters and the player should be willing to be on the sidelines every fight. It is not really disruptive as such and can be a good option for players who are there for the roleplaying but couldn't care less about tactical combat.

At least for me, I wouldn't have any problems with someone playing a non-combatant or a coward as long as the GM was on board and we picked a setting/situation where it was reasonable...
But what I might veto would be if they picked the 'roll to act rationally' flaw and then on the meta level expected to be considered a core part of the party's combat lineup, asked to be involved in combat or combat-adjacent plans and got offended OOC when players didn't want to include them, etc.
Right. I was assuming the standard 4-PC-band and the combats balanced around it. If you add a 5th who never fights or similar, it isn't a problem. Of course, 'this isn't a problem because everyone is on board and works to make it so' is a solution to most every situation in TTRPGs.


I think some people, for whatever reason, default to thinking 5 or 6 when they hear "pacifist character." Hence the knee jerk reaction. Justified? Probably not.
I think the nature of these threads is to focus on areas where things break down in some way.

[NichG]

Right. I was assuming the standard 4-PC-band and the combats balanced around it. If you add a 5th who never fights or similar, it isn't a problem. Of course, 'this isn't a problem because everyone is on board and works to make it so' is a solution to most every situation in TTRPGs.

I guess I meant more like, even in D&D the 'standard 4 PC band and combats balanced around that' is not how the game has to be run. You could underpower the opposition, overpower the party, run it flat but invite people to ramp up the cheese, use combats centered around timed objectives so having someone not get stuck in the melee to run around pulling levers or sabotaging machines or stealing the artifact of power or whatever is useful, run a campaign where there's always ways to avoid combats and the pacifist character can try to chart that path, run a bodyguards-style campaign where the pacifist character is actively being hunted by non-pacifistic forces, or have more focus on magical MacGyver problem solving shenanigans and tricks & traps ruins delving, etc... So it feels there's a lot of options to run a campaign suited to a pacifist character depending on what the other players want as well. It's manageable because you can sort of plan around it and there's not likely to be push-back.

Whereas the paradox of a player with a mechanically pacifistic character (e.g. the 'roll a check to be able to fight' character) but who still wants the campaign to largely revolve around combats which they intend to try to participate in seems much more intractable to me. That's more along the lines of something like 'choosing to play a Frenzied Berserker could be considered an act of PvP, even if its the mechanics which make you attack allies rather than you deciding to do so'.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess I meant more like, even in D&D the 'standard 4 PC band and combats balanced around that' is not how the game has to be run. You could underpower the opposition, overpower the party, run it flat but invite people to ramp up the cheese, use combats centered around timed objectives so having someone not get stuck in the melee to run around pulling levers or sabotaging machines or stealing the artifact of power or whatever is useful, run a campaign where there's always ways to avoid combats and the pacifist character can try to chart that path, run a bodyguards-style campaign where the pacifist character is actively being hunted by non-pacifistic forces, or have more focus on magical MacGyver problem solving shenanigans and tricks & traps ruins delving, etc... So it feels there's a lot of options to run a campaign suited to a pacifist character depending on what the other players want as well. It's manageable because you can sort of plan around it and there's not likely to be push-back.

Whereas the paradox of a player with a mechanically pacifistic character (e.g. the 'roll a check to be able to fight' character) but who still wants the campaign to largely revolve around combats which they intend to try to participate in seems much more intractable to me. That's more along the lines of something like 'choosing to play a Frenzied Berserker could be considered an act of PvP, even if its the mechanics which make you attack allies rather than you deciding to do so'.

Personally, I find "I'm going to play <ill-fitting concept> and you have to warp/write the whole campaign around my tender sensibilities" (which is what that entails, most of the time) to be a questionable act in and of itself, at least without enthusiastic table support[0]. The fact that you can (if you try hard enough) adjust for it doesn't mean it isn't ill-fitting. You're demanding that the DM make significant house rules and put major effort into rebalancing the system around 3 effectives and one dead weight. It can be done, but it's a significant ask (been there, done that). Just like you can stuff a gorilla into a tux with suitable[1] tailoring. But bringing a gorilla to a wedding is not generally considered an act befitting social decorum.

Character building isn't a unilateral right. It's a shared privilege, a conversation. Everyone gets a say in what concepts make sense for that particular table. If you want to play an ill-fitting[2] character, it's your responsibility to find a table where it isn't ill-fitting. And you don't get to complain that others won't accommodate you.

[0] And if you have enthusiastic table support, it's not ill-fitting. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.
[1] Pun very much intended. Just apeing my betters.
[2] And a level 4+ character (on my scale of pacifism) is generally ill-fitting in a D&D-like. I have the same feeling about any character whose existence demands bespoke alterations in the flow of the game. You want to play a cyborg mutant ninja in a primordial fantasy game? Yeah, that's ill-fitting. You want to play an (actual, real magic using) wizard in a 1930's mob game (with no fantasy elements)? That's ill-fitting. You want to play a pacifist in a hack-and-slash game? Ill-fitting. A murder-hobo in a political game? Likely ill-fitting.

[Max_Killjoy]

Part of this comes back to the old canard (widely believed in both writing and gaming circles these days) that "flaws define the character".

So if a character's flaw is "doesn't know how to fight" or "refuses to fight", the player believes that lessening or overcoming these flaws fundamentally changes the character.

And thus, you get the character who not only can't or won't fight at the start of the campaign, but (because of the player's steadfast refusal) never learns anything about how to fight even to the degree that they're not a liability (because the other characters have to not just pick up the slack, but actively defend that character whenever there's a fight).

(Insert any character who cannot contribute to a core activity of the campaign, and a player who refuses to allow that flaw to be addressed to any degree ever.)


Another aspect comes down, again, to authorial fiction vs RPGs. Because we see useless characters as core parts of the story in authorial fiction, some gamers think that those characters are valid PCs. I refer to this as "I want to play the NPC" syndrome. For some reason, IME, it's always the same player in a group who wants to play an NPC in every campaign. The plucky kid sidekick who THINKS he's useful, the guy caught up in the adventure he never wanted, the damsel in distress, etc. Always the same player.

And that also ties back into the notion of "archetypes" (in the Hollywood / TV tropes manner of "the smart guy", "the strong guy", "the comic relief", etc), and the above idea of "if I allow my character to adapt over time to the situation they're in, and become more competent, then they're losing flaws, and thus losing what defines them".

...

E: Different subject... I see "murder hobos" mentioned, and I'd say that it ties into the overall discussion in a different way as well. The reason some players tend towards characters with no connections, no relatives, no friends, etc, is that there are GMs who enthusiastically go after those connections as vulnerabilities and narrative contrivances. Of course the villain turns out to be courting the PC's younger sister, because why in Hollywood's name wouldn't that insanely unlikely coincidence not turn out to be the case? Of course the PC's mom just happens to be in the bank when the gang the PCs are investigating robs it. Of course the BBEG's top enforcer turns out to be the guy who slaughtered one of the PC's relatives. Of course Aunt May is driving across the bridge when the escaping villain damages it to keep Spiderman from chasing him. Of course.

Ugh.

If you want PCs to have connections, stop going after those connections.

[NichG]

Personally, I find "I'm going to play <ill-fitting concept> and you have to warp/write the whole campaign around my tender sensibilities" (which is what that entails, most of the time) to be a questionable act in and of itself, at least without enthusiastic table support[0]. The fact that you can (if you try hard enough) adjust for it doesn't mean it isn't ill-fitting. You're demanding that the DM make significant house rules and put major effort into rebalancing the system around 3 effectives and one dead weight. It can be done, but it's a significant ask (been there, done that). Just like you can stuff a gorilla into a tux with suitable[1] tailoring. But bringing a gorilla to a wedding is not generally considered an act befitting social decorum.

I guess I'm saying that, as a DM, I wouldn't find it an ill-fitting concept for D&D. It'd be a relatively easily fit concept, and I wouldn't consider it as requiring any major effort, since it's well within the general sphere of 'PCs will do what they may' that I'd have to deal with anyhow. On the other hand, the alternate version of the flaw suggested (per-round roll to see if you freak out in combat) I would have much more trouble with.

[Willie the Duck]

I guess I meant more like, even in D&D the 'standard 4 PC band and combats balanced around that' is not how the game has to be run. You could underpower the opposition, overpower the party, run it flat but invite people to ramp up the cheese, use combats centered around timed objectives so having someone not get stuck in the melee to run around pulling levers or sabotaging machines or stealing the artifact of power or whatever is useful, run a campaign where there's always ways to avoid combats and the pacifist character can try to chart that path, run a bodyguards-style campaign where the pacifist character is actively being hunted by non-pacifistic forces, or have more focus on magical MacGyver problem solving shenanigans and tricks & traps ruins delving, etc... So it feels there's a lot of options to run a campaign suited to a pacifist character depending on what the other players want as well. It's manageable because you can sort of plan around it and there's not likely to be push-back.
Well sure, but in my mind, that's the same thing as my 'this isn't a problem because everyone is on board and works to make it so' qualifier. You are right, the game can work without the '4 man band' with or without a pacifist character present (and the actual prevalence of 4 PC groups is something of which I'm somewhat dubious). The game can work without combat in the first place, etc. However, again, that's crafting the gameplay around the character decisions, which pretty much makes anything work.

Whereas the paradox of a player with a mechanically pacifistic character (e.g. the 'roll a check to be able to fight' character) but who still wants the campaign to largely revolve around combats which they intend to try to participate in seems much more intractable to me.
I'd agree. If your game is based around structures of the party facing perilous* fights against challenges of a specified level of danger**, actively choosing an inherently unreliable contributor to those fights is going to be a headache to everyone else involved.
*yeah, yeah, yeah, '5e is easy-mode' or whatever. It's only easy if you only choose to engage in easy fights.
**Either because the DM sets it up that way, or the party chooses endeavors of a specific level of danger.

Personally, I find "I'm going to play <ill-fitting concept> and you have to warp/write the whole campaign around my tender sensibilities" (which is what that entails, most of the time) to be a questionable act in and of itself, at least without enthusiastic table support[0]. The fact that you can (if you try hard enough) adjust for it doesn't mean it isn't ill-fitting. You're demanding that the DM make significant house rules and put major effort into rebalancing the system around 3 effectives and one dead weight. It can be done, but it's a significant ask (been there, done that). Just like you can stuff a gorilla into a tux with suitable[1] tailoring. But bringing a gorilla to a wedding is not generally considered an act befitting social decorum.

Character building isn't a unilateral right. It's a shared privilege, a conversation. Everyone gets a say in what concepts make sense for that particular table. If you want to play an ill-fitting[2] character, it's your responsibility to find a table where it isn't ill-fitting. And you don't get to complain that others won't accommodate you.
I think you've reduced this person-who-wants-to-play-a-pacifist to such a caricature* as to be un-useful to the conversation, but otherwise you certainly have a point. You need buy-in from the rest of the group (GM included) to make any kind of Load character work. And once you have buy-in from everyone, you can make anything work, be it a useless (to game premise) character, the spotlight hog, the OP nightmare, whatever else. If everyone is on board for your madness, any madness can fit (which, if the group finds it fun, more power to them, but it really doesn't say much regarding the pitfalls of Character Flaw systems).
*'tender sensibilities?' at that point why not just go full-ham and call them a edgelord dramaqueen fop or something similar?


Part of this comes back to the old canard (widely believed in both writing and gaming circles these days) that "flaws define the character".
I'm unconvinced that this* really is all that big of a thing in 'gaming circles these days.' I think, like the old standby of 'the party rogue that steals from the party,' it's something that happens once in a gaming group (probably when everyone is a teen), and then people learn how unfun it is and move past it (perhaps a little more than once for this issue, as 'flaws-dominant character build' is a significantly more complicated arrangement than 'steals from party'). TTRPG players are, to a lessor or greater degree, not complete idiots who will ruin their own fun. People learn what does and doesn't work in-actual-play and adjust from there. Obviously gaming systems have put structures in place where the flaws define characters since just about the beginning. However, anecdotally it seems that one of the major complaints about such systems is how often players try to get the benefits thereof without actually suffering the consequences implied. Regardless of how one feels about gaming the system, that speaks to a trend to not let flaws define the character.
*or at least this to annoying or problematic levels.


Different subject... I see "murder hobos" mentioned, and I'd say that it ties into the overall discussion in a different way as well. The reason some players tend towards characters with no connections, no relatives, no friends, etc, is that there are GMs who enthusiastically go after those connections as vulnerabilities and narrative contrivances.
But hard agree here. See also the player who resists their PC going around town without their arms and/or armor (when every time they do, they are jumped), the player who only plays monks/sorcerers/game-specific-equivalents (under the DM who targets possessions), the player who will trade neigh infinite build points (or equivalent) for an uncontestable* teleport-far-away (under the DM who likes railroad-capture/'you wake up in a prison cell' scenarios).
*can't grapple or gag them to stop it, maybe even happens automatically if they fall unconscious

[NichG]

Well sure, but in my mind, that's the same thing as my 'this isn't a problem because everyone is on board and works to make it so' qualifier. You are right, the game can work without the '4 man band' with or without a pacifist character present (and the actual prevalence of 4 PC groups is something of which I'm somewhat dubious). The game can work without combat in the first place, etc. However, again, that's crafting the gameplay around the character decisions, which pretty much makes anything work.


This is probably such a strong default for me that I have trouble imagining any other way, even without particularly challenging player desires coming into it.

[Willie the Duck]

This is probably such a strong default for me that I have trouble imagining any other way, even without particularly challenging player desires coming into it.
Which part?

[NichG]

Which part?

That the gameplay and characters are continuously co-adapted to each-other. To the extent that for what I run I probably couldn't really say what the gameplay would be very far beyond the initial pitch and maybe the first half of the first session without knowing about and taking into consideration the particular characters.

So e.g. I can see how bringing a pacifist to an XCrawl tournament module might be a problem, but that's not my first or second or third thought when someone says D&D.

[BRC]

That the gameplay and characters are continuously co-adapted to each-other. To the extent that for what I run I probably couldn't really say what the gameplay would be very far beyond the initial pitch and maybe the first half of the first session without knowing about and taking into consideration the particular characters.

So e.g. I can see how bringing a pacifist to an XCrawl tournament module might be a problem, but that's not my first or second or third thought when someone says D&D.

Different systems are good at different things. You can hack and make basically any robust RPG system do anything, but at some point you're fighting against the mechanics that are laid out. The Events of the game are always going to be dictated by the characters being played, but the system is going to support those events to varying degrees.

Like, you can build a Pacifist D&D Character, but to do so you're really fighting against the game mechanics, which are mostly centered around lethal combat.
Compare to a different system, where a "Pacifist" character can simply be a character that does something that isn't fighting. In a game like HERO, it's easy to build a pacifist character.


It's the difference between, say, one player making a character who is ship captain, and so the Campaign becomes mostly nautical, vs one character making a pacifist, so the campaign becomes focused on diplomacy and intrigue. Both are DOABLE within D&D, but one option is far more supported by the system.

Most notably, if I said "We're going to be playing D&D! Make a character!" with no other details, the "Nautical campaign because somebody wanted to be a pirate" is probably going to fit your character better than the "Intrigue campaign because somebody wanted to be a pacifist".

[Tanarii]

And thus, you get the character who not only can't or won't fight at the start of the campaign, but (because of the player's steadfast refusal) never learns anything about how to fight even to the degree that they're not a liability (because the other characters have to not just pick up the slack, but actively defend that character whenever there's a fight).

(Insert any character who cannot contribute to a core activity of the campaign, and a player who refuses to allow that flaw to be addressed to any degree ever.) Indeed. And it's the flaws taken to a degree that the character becomes a regular liability that cause the problem points.

A "pacifist" who won't themselves directly damage opponents but meaningfully contributes offensively and defensively usually isn't that, even in a combat oriented game.

A coward that runs away may well be though. Depends if the party cares if they have to save them, and if they bring additional trouble down on the party's head, or if they otherwise drain resources and rewards from the party which outweighs their overall contributions.

[Beleriphon]

Wait, wait. If we've been playing Guardians of the Galaxy for however many sessions and at some point Drax's player pulls the radio Ronin for drunken revenge card out are we really surprised by this? I'm assuming our group has gone through several adventures, and the GM has probably dangled this possibility in front of Drax's player.

In the next campaign is anybody surprised when Rocket steals valuable stuff in the first session? Or by the third campaign GMPC Thor does something loud and dangerous?

[NichG]

Different systems are good at different things. You can hack and make basically any robust RPG system do anything, but at some point you're fighting against the mechanics that are laid out. The Events of the game are always going to be dictated by the characters being played, but the system is going to support those events to varying degrees.

Like, you can build a Pacifist D&D Character, but to do so you're really fighting against the game mechanics, which are mostly centered around lethal combat.
Compare to a different system, where a "Pacifist" character can simply be a character that does something that isn't fighting. In a game like HERO, it's easy to build a pacifist character.


I have a very different view of D&D than you, and perhaps also of systems in general. Sure you can have combat in D&D, but even without a pacifist character in the group or anything like that I tend to average one combat per three sessions when I run it. The magical MacGyver elements and how they interact with the character building mini-game do a lot more mechanical heavy lifting than combat itself in my experience. Additionally, I'd say that the most important parts of a campaign aren't really about the system, though you can support them with the system in various ways.

[Cluedrew]

But in a campaign, what Drax did was so clearly and openly, "screw everyone else, screw the other characters, screw the other players, screw our chances of success, screw the whole campaign, Drax is doing 'what Drax would do' right here and right now", that in any group I've ever been in, it would have caused open tension between players.I'll admit, I arrived at a very different answer. I can go over it again if you want, but I'm curious about how you arrived at this answer


That's kind of the thing - in this thread we ended up talking about personal preferences for how systems and groups handle character flaws.And there are multiple parts to that question. Two in particular that I want to tease apart right now are "What flaws and resulting behaviour to we want, allow or forbid?" and "How are they actually implemented in the system?". The two seemed to getting muddled together, or maybe it was something else, with some comments seeming to criticize the implementation of a fault for what behaviour the example was encouraging. Sometimes they are tied together but there were some examples I don't think they were and I want to pull that apart.

[icefractal]

When we're talking about "the Load", are we really talking about a character whose net contribution is negative, or merely one whose contribution is significantly less than expected for their level? Because it seems like most of the examples are the latter - even an extreme pacifist who refused to help in a fight could still have adequate defenses, and in that case their presence is just a net zero - maybe even a small positive if foes waste attacks on them.

And in that case, it's only a problem for the party if the GM is sort of tailoring the foes to the party, but not precisely. Like, on the scale of tailoring:
max - every encounter is designed around being a given difficulty for these exact PCs - the Load is no problem
mid - the encounters are designed based on the PCs' level and quantity - the Load will make things tougher. Of course things may already be overly tough or easy as a baseline, since a given group of PCs is going to vary from the typical power for their level.
min - foes are what they are based on the world, not tailored at all to the PCs - the Load is no problem

You might object that they take a share of the treasure (in games where that's even an important thing). But again, it depends on whether the GM is tailoring that:
max - the PCs are kept as close to WBL as possible - the Load makes no difference
mid - foes always have standard loot for their CR, and it's largely fungible - the Load means less per-capita, and might be the difference that puts you below normal WBL
min - loot is what it is, not tailored to the PCs - the Load means less per-capita, but that amount might already be significantly below or above normal WBL, depending on what's happened in the campaign. And non-combat methods may yield more gold anyway.

So given that I tend to prefer either max-tailored or min-tailored games (more the latter, but the former has benefits for a plot-oriented game), that may explain why I haven't really seen "the Load" being a problem in practice.

[Tanarii]

When we're talking about "the Load", are we really talking about a character whose net contribution is negative, or merely one whose contribution is significantly less than expected for their level? Because it seems like most of the examples are the latter - even an extreme pacifist who refused to help in a fight could still have adequate defenses, and in that case their presence is just a net zero - maybe even a small positive if foes waste attacks on them.
I was assuming a net negative contribution in combat. Effectively they're an NPC escort quest. Hopefully their other contributions to the adventure outweighs that enough to make taking them along worth the time and effort. To balance out both being detrimental on any non-tailored combat situation, as well as taking a share of any non-tailored xp and treasure, with no hope of ever improving enough to effectively be a met positive (unlike say a 1st level retainer/henchmen just recruited).

Note there are plenty of games where such a character does contribute very meaningfully to the adventure, and is worth including in the party. Like, it wouldn't necessarily be a problem for a hacker in Shadowrun that was a coward who cowers behind the best cover they can find. When their mini-game turn comes around, they'll shine and carry the entire party.



So given that I tend to prefer either max-tailored or min-tailored games (more the latter, but the former has benefits for a plot-oriented game), that may explain why I haven't really seen "the Load" being a problem in practice.
Your analysis is not correct, "The Load" is a problem with zero tailoring. Only if their negative load is accounted for and balanced out by tailoring do they stop being a negative effect.

Either that, or they need to be worth the trouble for other reasons.

[Talakeal]

I was assuming a net negative contribution in combat. Effectively they're an NPC escort quest. Hopefully their other contributions to the adventure outweighs that enough to make taking them along worth the time and effort. To balance out both being detrimental on any non-tailored combat situation, as well as taking a share of any non-tailored xp and treasure, with no hope of ever improving enough to effectively be a met positive (unlike say a 1st level retainer/henchmen just recruited).

Note there are plenty of games where such a character does contribute very meaningfully to the adventure, and is worth including in the party. Like, it wouldn't necessarily be a problem for a hacker in Shadowrun that was a coward who cowers behind the best cover they can find. When their mini-game turn comes around, they'll shine and carry the entire party.


Your analysis is not correct, "The Load" is a problem with zero tailoring. Only if their negative load is accounted for and balanced out by tailoring do they stop being a negative effect.

Either that, or they need to be worth the trouble for other reasons.

Can you please explain how someone standing there doing nothing is a detriment in combat? I am struggling to see how you came to that conclusion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Can you please explain how someone standing there doing nothing is a detriment in combat? I am struggling to see how you came to that conclusion.

A few possibilities:
* You're going to take damage, so healing you is a drain on party resources. Basically, you're soaking protective/regeneration resources...while not contributing anything in that aspect.
* You're in the way, either physically (when fighting in close combat) or in the way of AoE/other abilities

A few meta possibilities:
* If there's any kind of tailoring, the chances of screwing it up go up except at the extremes.
* People who, through their characters, tell the party "I don't want to participate in X area of the game" (whatever that might be--this goes equally well for the dumb-as-bricks, socially-inept barbarian) often (but not always) get bored when X comes up. And boredom is dangerous and contagious.

Personally, that last part is the real danger for me. If you're only actually part of some limited sub-set of the game, it's much harder to engage you. And the chance of bad OOC behavior (in my experience[1]) goes up tremendously as people tune out.

[1] Especially working with teenagers, but it's applied elsewhere.

[NichG]

And there are multiple parts to that question. Two in particular that I want to tease apart right now are "What flaws and resulting behaviour to we want, allow or forbid?" and "How are they actually implemented in the system?". The two seemed to getting muddled together, or maybe it was something else, with some comments seeming to criticize the implementation of a fault for what behaviour the example was encouraging. Sometimes they are tied together but there were some examples I don't think they were and I want to pull that apart.

That's fair. Though then we have to take the meta seriously: the players in GotG were professional actors following a pre-arranged script. For me I can imagine a system (or a player abuse of a system) producing the moment of betrayal in GotG even if the entire table was not on board.

Probably the mechanical danger zone is if a character must act out their flaw in order to be long-term effective (permanent character advancement tied to acting out the flaw) with the rewards scaling with the severity of the act; or systems with unavoidable or randomly-determined compels; or systems which lists flaws in ways that encourage very extreme interpretations (flaws like 'klepromaniac', 'untrustworthy', 'paranoid', 'rage-holic', etc). Or systems with crippling punishments for not acting out flaws (D&D paladins ...)

Or one could instead talk about how to make systems which encourage constructive rather than destructive applications of flaws where they show up. For example, systems with built-in metagame negotiation mechanics like table vetoes (or how online RP has the convention that you shouldn't god-mod other characters' reactions even to the extent that if you say 'I attack them' then their player gets to decide if they succeed in dodging or tanking the hit). Or systems that have built-in paths for growing to overcome flaws, encouraging the growth to be the defining part of the character rather than the flaw itself. Or systems which make it so that other players can better protect what they care about from the consequences of acting out extreme flaws - dramatic editing points for example, so that someone could say e.g. 'I spend one point to have swapped the stone with a fake' or 'I'm spending a point to say that that NPC that just got killed in my fellow's rage wasn't actually the only guy with the information I need, and there's a hint in his possessions'.

[icefractal]

Your analysis is not correct, "The Load" is a problem with zero tailoring. Only if their negative load is accounted for and balanced out by tailoring do they stop being a negative effect. If they're actually negative, yes. I've never seen a PC who was actually negative rather than "barely positive", and most of the examples in this thread aren't negative either.

[Cluedrew]

For me I can imagine a system (or a player abuse of a system) producing the moment of betrayal in GotG even if the entire table was not on board.True, which is why if you are going to create a general flaw framework it should include some flexibility or an opt-out. For instance Fate's aspects don't ever have to apply for or against any situation, the table (mainly the character's player and the GM) has to agree that they do. Some people complain about how that opens it for exploitation, but it also means that if its bad for the campaign you can just decide it doesn't apply right now.

I'd say more but I'm out of time.

On The Load: I think Tanarii meant they can be a net negative by absorbing resources (experiance

[Vahnavoi]

A simple example of two flaws that don't work in most D&D or other games with a heavy combat focus, in that they break the typical social contract for those games:
- I am a coward and flee from danger
- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Even if they're mechanically enforced and a situational thing, they are problem flaws in many games

You don't need to invoke "social contract" to explain what the issue with those are. They are simply weak strategies which lead to constant losing if allowed, so the metagame ends up discouraging them.

Really, quite a lot of what people seem to pin on "social contract" is just metagame built on past failures: "this didn't work in a prior game, so I don't want to see it in the next one". If you want those enforced, write them down and call them what they are: house rules.

---


Can you please explain how someone standing there doing nothing is a detriment in combat? I am struggling to see how you came to that conclusion.

PhoenixPhyre already pointed out few of the obvious things, but more generally: In order for a character to really do nothing, they have to have no impact on the course of combat whatsoever. In practice, other players often adjust their moves to accommodate mere presence of a character, even if they don't have to. This leads to, if nothing else, opportunity costs. F.ex., the player of a paladin would've preferred to courageously charge into the fray, but now feels compelled to stay back to protect the non-combatant. Notice that the non-combatant doesn't have to be in any actual danger; this is about what the paladin's player believes and thinks their character believes.

---


For me I can imagine a system producing the moment of betrayal in GotG even if the entire table was not on board.

Can you take the extra step and imagine a system where the entire table doesn't need to be on board? (I think you can; you may have already done this in a prior post, I just don't feel like going back to quotee mine.)

[Satinavian]

I don't see why a noncombattant would be assumed to be more vulnerable than anyone else. If anything, they would be less vulnerable as they have no incentive not to prioritize defense. So they are likely the least in need of protection and even if they were wounded that would usually mean that they successfully absorbed hits otherwise directed at the real combattants, which would be a positive, not negative thing. Only with lots of enemy AoE that would change.

[NichG]

Can you take the extra step and imagine a system where the entire table doesn't need to be on board? (I think you can; you may have already done this in a prior post, I just don't feel like going back to quotee mine.)

In the context of a player (Quertus) saying they don't want this kind of event in their games, it'd be sort of black hat game design to try to make a system that leads to the event anyhow without the player realizing they should be upset...

[Vahnavoi]

I don't see why a noncombattant would be assumed to be more vulnerable than anyone else. If anything, they would be less vulnerable as they have no incentive not to prioritize defense. So they are likely the least in need of protection and even if they were wounded that would usually mean that they successfully absorbed hits otherwise directed at the real combattants, which would be a positive, not negative thing. Only with lots of enemy AoE that would change.

... said a rational GM to their irrational player, in a vain attempt to explain why they didn't need to change their strategy. Meanwhile, the player is thinking "Doesn't fight, means doesn't fight back, means is easy prey to an enemy".

---


In the context of a player (Quertus) saying they don't want this kind of event in their games, it'd be sort of black hat game design to try to make a system that leads to the event anyhow without the player realizing they should be upset...

Now you overshot the mark, by adding the idea that the player wouldn't realize they should be upset. Though I wasn't talking about a game specifically set to Quertus's preferences any more, sorry for not specifying.

So, (a) player(s) can realize what can happen, they can be upset when it happens. The system isn't set up to avoid that, it doesn't need to avoid that for it to work. Can you imagine that kind of a system?

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll admit, I arrived at a very different answer. I can go over it again if you want, but I'm curious about how you arrived at this answer.


GotG spoilers, if it matters to anyone...

1) They had a plan. Drax decided to blow that plan up.
2) They knew that Ronin could not be allowed to get his hands on the object, that it would be very bad (not just how bad yet, but very bad). Drax decided that was less important than his revenge.
3) They knew Ronin was insanely dangerous, and would show up with a mass of troops and weapons. Drax didn't care.
4) By all rights, the GotG should have been wiped out in that fight -- Drax almost died if not for Groot's grabbag of abilities, Gamora and Starlord both almost died, then they were captured by the Ravagers.
5) This allows Nebula to take the infinity gem in its orb at this point, thus putting it in Ronin's hands, and leading to everything that happened from that point on with all that added death and destruction -- and he was only stopped by a plot miracle.

Really, outside of authorial fiction, Drax's betrayal should have tanked the campaign with a TPK and total failure, it's only authorial fiat in the original medium that prevents it.

[NichG]

Now you overshot the mark, by adding the idea that the player wouldn't realize they should be upset. Though I wasn't talking about a game specifically set to Quertus's preferences any more, sorry for not specifying.

So, (a) player(s) can realize what can happen, they can be upset when it happens. The system isn't set up to avoid that, it doesn't need to avoid that for it to work. Can you imagine that kind of a system?

That's just a maladapted system then, unsuitable for that player.

[Vahnavoi]

That's just a maladapted system then, unsuitable for that player.

I need you to better explain what you are imagining. I suggest you write down some kind of elaboration before you read what I have to say on the subject any further.

The only decision making schema that truly requires everyone at the table to be on board is full consensus, and even that is not guaranteed to give anyone at the table what they want. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox) (Before anyone gets confused: I'm talking of decision schemas for making move decisions during the game. Consensus of game rules is not the same thing, and consensus about game rules does not necessitate consensus decision making in a game.)

Pretty much every other decision schema, such as simple vote by majority or electing a single person (such as a GM) to serve as final arbiter for decisions, naturally leads to situation where someone's wants and needs are compromised or eliminated from consideration. These are on purpose, since people can have incongruent wants and needs, and it's not always possible to satisfy them all. Indeed, I would argue most decision schemas prioritizing swift conflict resolution will regularly leave one or all participants dissatisfied.

Now, let's get back to situations where everyone loses. I don't want to rehash my whole "legal blows" argument, but shortly: for pretty much any activity, there's some risk of discomfort that you just have to put up with, or the activity loses its point. In most general terms, for games, this means the risk of losing. People don't want to lose. They don't like losing. Getting upset at losing is normal. But if you want there to be any kind of challenge, you have to bite that bullet.

(If someone wants to make the classic "there's no winning and losing in roleplaying games!", let's just say that I think that's blatantly false for most commonly played games, and you'll set up better games as a game master or game designer if you take a moment to think about what victory and loss conditions exist for your games.)

So if a game system can be deemed maladaptive and unsuitable for a player just because it sometimes outputs a state that player doesn't want and makes them upset, I'd say that means most existing games are maladaptive for most of the people who play them! Even perfectly co-operative ones, provided they have some loss condition and moderate difficulty. I don't consider that a fruitful position for analyzing games or deciding which are worth playing.

---

With that preface in mind, what kind of schema did have in mind, which regularly leads to people getting something they don't want, might make people scream at each other, has been proven to work on tabletop by games like Saboteur, and could output something like the plot of Guardians of the Galaxy?

1) People make individual decisions.
2) There's a public game goal.
3) There are secret individual game goals which may be incongruent with the public goal. (The classic configuration is one traitor with an opposed goal, but for purposes of this example, assume an unknown number of traitors.)
4) Incomplete information.
5) Random or pseudorandom procedural generation (Ie., the players are rolling dice or drawing cards for play power.)

Put together, people have incentive and a goal for co-operation, but who to co-operate with is an open question that must be solved through play. In such a game schema, it's common that non-traitorous players end up alternating between co-operation and defection as they try to sort out who is to be trusted by trial and error.

There's a number of variant games you can consider. For example, you can consider a game where only the Guardians are player characters, and another where player characters include Nebula and Ronan. I won't dwell on the details; my aim isn't to write a fictional play report nor full ruleset for Guardians of the Galaxy: Trust Issues: The Roleplaying Game.

[False God]

I don't see why a noncombattant would be assumed to be more vulnerable than anyone else. If anything, they would be less vulnerable as they have no incentive not to prioritize defense. So they are likely the least in need of protection and even if they were wounded that would usually mean that they successfully absorbed hits otherwise directed at the real combattants, which would be a positive, not negative thing. Only with lots of enemy AoE that would change.

Personally, I've seen plenty of "support" pacifists and "face" non-combatants in successful games. All just understand where are strengths are and where they are not. This is of course assuming the game covers a lot of situations (some of them social or exploration-oriented over combat) and is not a simple meat-grinder. We don't begrudge Smashy the Barbarian his lack of contribution to social situations. We don't begrudge Blasty the Wizard's lack of contribution to finding our way out of the woods.

But it is (if this thread is apparently any indication) offensively burdensome to a number of people to contribute little or nothing to combat.

Maybe I should go add this to the "Things I've found I don't like about RPGS..." thread: an extreme focus on combat above all else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We don't begrudge Smashy the Barbarian his lack of contribution to social situations. We don't begrudge Blasty the Wizard's lack of contribution to finding our way out of the woods.


Personal Taste Warning -- this is not an absolute or anything other than my personal attitude. YMMV and that's ok.

Personally, I do find mono-focus characters to be annoying to various degrees. Mr Smashy and Mr Blasty are going to get bored (and boredom is dangerous) any time we're not smashing things. Which is a significant portion of the time. In the same sort of way, Paul Pacifist (of the "non-participatory" variety) will get bored when we are smashing things. Which is also a significant portion of the time.

I believe that characters who can only (or who are only willing to willing) contribute to one small facet of the game are worse for the game than those who can contribute (even if not overwhelmingly) or at least are willing to contribute in all facets of the game. Don't have to be great at it, but my ideal is for everyone to be involved in every scene to one degree or another. No matter what your specialty is.

The same goes for adventure designs that do mono-person spotlights (ie building a "now's where the thief goes in on their own" or "here's where the wizard solves everything" or "here's where the street samurai does it all" adventure)--I believe that they're poor designs. Because boredom is dangerous, and rotating spotlights leave everyone else bored. Or at least run that risk.

[NichG]

I need you to better explain what you are imagining. I suggest you write down some kind of elaboration before you read what I have to say on the subject any further.

Basically I think you're holding the wrong things constant and it's leading to a game design which thwarts what is being asked for rather than providing it.

If Quertus says 'here's an example of something I don't want to see in a game that I'm in, but I also don't want the fix to be that everyone has to play as close to optimal as possible' then if I'm designing a system for them, my goal is to avoid the situation that they said they don't want to happen. Not to come up with some way to keep the event that the client explicitly said they didn't want but dress it differently.

I'm hearing a lot of 'you can't do perfect, so don't bother doing anything at all' in your arguments. Sure, I can't make a system which is guaranteed to make everyone happy always no matter who they are or what they do. But if I'm intentionally moving to the areas of the design space which literally amplify the opposite from what I've been asked for, then that's not even trying - its worsening the thing I've been asked to improve, rather than improving it.

So basically, my goal in the context of this thread is not to design a system which would output the plot of Guardians of the Galaxy. My goal is to design a system which discourages or even forbids that plot, but which simultaneously still provides some leeway for players to express their characters' personalities or to play in a lax fashion with respect to decision optimality without those things rising to the level of consequence of a full on betrayal.

So we can tell some things about such a system - it probably shouldn't be built around correct/incorrect decisions, and any time a compelled decision has stakes those should be pretty strongly bounded. Furthermore, when stakes are high, the system needs to have a lot of transparency and strong guarantees about consequence so that a player can't easily 'accidentally betray' the group to a significant degree. Such things would point in the uphill direction as far as what has been requested.

[Max_Killjoy]

Personally, I've seen plenty of "support" pacifists and "face" non-combatants in successful games. All just understand where are strengths are and where they are not. This is of course assuming the game covers a lot of situations (some of them social or exploration-oriented over combat) and is not a simple meat-grinder. We don't begrudge Smashy the Barbarian his lack of contribution to social situations. We don't begrudge Blasty the Wizard's lack of contribution to finding our way out of the woods.

But it is (if this thread is apparently any indication) offensively burdensome to a number of people to contribute little or nothing to combat.

Maybe I should go add this to the "Things I've found I don't like about RPGS..." thread: an extreme focus on combat above all else.

To me, there's a difference between "This is what I'm best at" and "this is the only thing I'm good at".

If all a character can do is fight, then whenever there's no fighting, what is that character doing?

If all a character can do is talk, then whenever there's no talking, what is that character doing?

Etc.

A character in a game that features regular combat can be better at other things than combat, but they still need to start with or develop some combat ability.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To me, there's a difference between "This is what I'm best at" and "this is the only thing I'm good at".

If all a character can do is fight, then whenever there's no fighting, what is that character doing?

If all a character can do is talk, then whenever there's no talking, what is that character doing?

Etc.

A character in a game that features regular combat can be better at other things than combat, but they still need to start with or develop some combat ability.

Hard agree.

And I personally dislike systems that encourage heavy specialization (to the point where only specialists can meaningfully contribute). Such as Shadowrun.

[Vahnavoi]

Basically I think you're holding the wrong things constant and it's leading to a game design which thwarts what is being asked for rather than providing it.

If Quertus says...

I agree the game schema I describe breaks at least one desired property for Quertus, that's why I apologized for not specifying that I'm not talking about a game set to his specific preferences anymore. What I wrote is more about points raised by you, Beleriphon, Cluedrew about what kind of meta could exist behind Guardians of Galaxy, if it was a game. If that's where we deviate, then I think I'm largely talking past you.

[NichG]

I agree the game schema I describe breaks at least one desired property for Quertus, that's why I apologized for not specifying that I'm not talking about a game set to his specific preferences anymore. What I wrote is more about points raised by you, Beleriphon, Cluedrew about what kind of meta could exist behind Guardians of Galaxy, if it was a game. If that's where we deviate, then I think I'm largely talking past you.

Yeah, my engagement with the GotG example is entirely centered around its role in Quertus' description of what they wanted, so the things about the meta were still connected to that thread of discussion for me and not an independent sub-topic.

[False God]

To me, there's a difference between "This is what I'm best at" and "this is the only thing I'm good at".

If all a character can do is fight, then whenever there's no fighting, what is that character doing?

If all a character can do is talk, then whenever there's no talking, what is that character doing?

Etc.

A character in a game that features regular combat can be better at other things than combat, but they still need to start with or develop some combat ability.

I disagree, provided all the bases are covered. Outside of combat, most things are not an issue of equal contribution. If Joe succeeds on persuading the King, there's no reason to have Bob make an attempt. Bob, Sue, Jan and Phil can all just sit around twiddling their thumbs. When it comes time to explore the forest and Phil finds the path, there's no need to Bob, Sue and everyone else to make an attempt, the path was found, the King was persuaded. Additional attempts are unnecessary. Specialization isn't even an issue at this point. Unlike attacks, you do not need to make repeated, banal social checks before you wear down the King's social health-bar. Joe makes a good argument, makes a good roll, boom done.

Likewise, if Bob runs roughshod over all the monster encounters, while everyone else does nothing or makes no real contribution, I honestly don't care beyond the DM trying to argue that noone gets any XP besides Bob.

I don't like the idea that "everyone needs to be able to fight" for a number of reasons that I probably can't get into on this forum, but at least for game-reasons, because it leads to combat first solutions. Everyone can fight...so why shouldn't they fight? This is why murderhobo-ing is so prevalent in D&D. Everyone could fight, so everyone should fight. And since every encounter could be a fight, every encounter becomes a fight.

[Cluedrew]

GotG spoilers, if it matters to anyone...I think you might be answering a different question. I don't care if it was a bad decision (it was) but was it a bad decision the other players - not the characters - would be against him making it. Yes we have to imagine the players because they don't actually exist.


Really, outside of authorial fiction, Drax's betrayal should have tanked the campaign with a TPK and total failure, it's only authorial fiat in the original medium that prevents it.No you could have pulled that off in a campaign. I mean if every player at the table (and that includes the GM) agrees something should happen and are willing to plan to make it happen, its probably going to happen. The results may or may not look natural but you can get them.


Personally, I do find mono-focus characters to be annoying to various degrees.The most narrowly focused character I ever made sort of had two areas of specialty but they were closely related and one only came up once, so might as well have been one. But she didn't come off that way. Partly because she was also the group translator - she just happened to be fluent in more languages than anyone else - but also because she stayed engaged all the time. Not mechanically, but she talked to NPCs and the other PCs and helped out in ways that didn't require rolling.

[Vahnavoi]

Yeah, my engagement with the GotG example is entirely centered around its role in Quertus' description of what they wanted, so the things about the meta were still connected to that thread of discussion for me and not an independent sub-topic.

It seems my question would've better been directed at Cluedrew or Max_Killjoy, given how their discussion seems to be going. Meaning, if you want to talk about imaginary players of imaginary GotG game, you might as well imagine a game where getting upset at getting an outcome you don't want doesn't reveal any glaring flaw in the game system or social dynamic of the group, since such a flaw isn't necessary for such a situation to happen.

[Talakeal]

A few possibilities:
* You're going to take damage, so healing you is a drain on party resources. Basically, you're soaking protective/regeneration resources...while not contributing anything in that aspect.
* You're in the way, either physically (when fighting in close combat) or in the way of AoE/other abilities

That assumes you actually are going out of your way to heal / protect the ally, or that simply standing there taking up space is a hindrance; its possible, but certainly not the default, and would likely disadvantage both sides equally.

Someone who actively stands in the way of their allies is such a weird edge case I can't really see it ever coming up, let alone it being the default.


On The Load: I think Tanarii meant they can be a net negative by absorbing resources (experiance

He said that they are a net negative in addition to taking a share of XP and treasure.

Although, I kind of find it hard to believe there are many GMs that would give a non-participant an equal share of combat XP in the first place, heck most games don't even split XP at all anymore in my experience.

[Satinavian]

Personal Taste Warning -- this is not an absolute or anything other than my personal attitude. YMMV and that's ok.

Personally, I do find mono-focus characters to be annoying to various degrees. Mr Smashy and Mr Blasty are going to get bored (and boredom is dangerous) any time we're not smashing things. Which is a significant portion of the time. In the same sort of way, Paul Pacifist (of the "non-participatory" variety) will get bored when we are smashing things. Which is also a significant portion of the time.

I believe that characters who can only (or who are only willing to willing) contribute to one small facet of the game are worse for the game than those who can contribute (even if not overwhelmingly) or at least are willing to contribute in all facets of the game. Don't have to be great at it, but my ideal is for everyone to be involved in every scene to one degree or another. No matter what your specialty is.

The same goes for adventure designs that do mono-person spotlights (ie building a "now's where the thief goes in on their own" or "here's where the wizard solves everything" or "here's where the street samurai does it all" adventure)--I believe that they're poor designs. Because boredom is dangerous, and rotating spotlights leave everyone else bored. Or at least run that risk.
You are talikg a lot about characters that can only do one thing and are on the sidelines when that one thing is not relevant.

Others are talking about characters that can't meaningfully contribute to one single thing but are useful all the rest of the time.

Do you recognize that this is not the same ?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You are talikg a lot about characters that can only do one thing and are on the sidelines when that one thing is not relevant.

Others are talking about characters that can't meaningfully contribute to one single thing but are useful all the rest of the time.

Do you recognize that this is not the same ?

One is a special case of the other, and my statements apply to both. I am personally annoyed by characters who are unable or unwilling to contribute (or even attempt to contribute) to any single aspect of the game. At least if that comes up more than once in a blue moon.

[Willie the Duck]

One is a special case of the other, and my statements apply to both. I am personally annoyed by characters who are unable or unwilling to contribute (or even attempt to contribute) to any single aspect of the game. At least if that comes up more than once in a blue moon.

To clarify -- does this mean you would not want there to be specific party roles (like 'Face,' or 'trap-finder')?

[False God]

One is a special case of the other, and my statements apply to both. I am personally annoyed by characters who are unable or unwilling to contribute (or even attempt to contribute) to any single aspect of the game. At least if that comes up more than once in a blue moon.

Again tho, outside of combat, "other aspects" of the game are not the same "everyone needs to pitch in" situation.

You really don't want the guy with +1 Charisma and no skill points attempting to make a diplomacy check when you have at least one person who has a +4 and 10 points in it.

Sure if we're talking about 5E with it's universal "Help" action, but then it doesn't matter how the other character has been built, the game itsself has realized that Bob the Barbarian may want to help persuade the King, but is simply incapable, and so they've provided him with a build-independent action. Of course, it doesn't stack so really Joe the Charmer can only get help from 1 person.

If the DM set up the game so that everyone has to make good social checks, then the DM has set the game up for failure, because he knows not everyone can make good social checks.

So I repeat: what's the point of asking Bob to be capable of contribution, when you don't actually want that contribution, and it's unlikely to succeed anyway?

[Vahnavoi]

A general way of formulating PhoenixPhyre's argument is that they dislike all strategies that reduce a player to a spectator for extended periods of playtime. Specific party roles are okay when their specific activities are embedded in a schema where everyone is still actively engaged. If simultaneity is not possible, short-cycle sequences are preferred to long-cycle sequences.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Again tho, outside of combat, "other aspects" of the game are not the same "everyone needs to pitch in" situation.

You really don't want the guy with +1 Charisma and no skill points attempting to make a diplomacy check when you have at least one person who has a +4 and 10 points in it.

Sure if we're talking about 5E with it's universal "Help" action, but then it doesn't matter how the other character has been built, the game itsself has realized that Bob the Barbarian may want to help persuade the King, but is simply incapable, and so they've provided him with a build-independent action. Of course, it doesn't stack so really Joe the Charmer can only get help from 1 person.

If the DM set up the game so that everyone has to make good social checks, then the DM has set the game up for failure, because he knows not everyone can make good social checks.

So I repeat: what's the point of asking Bob to be capable of contribution, when you don't actually want that contribution, and it's unlikely to succeed anyway?


A general way of formulating PhoenixPhyre's argument is that they dislike all strategies that reduce a player to a spectator for extended periods of playtime. Specific party roles are okay when their specific activities are embedded in a schema where everyone is still actively engaged. If simultaneity is not possible, short-cycle sequences are preferred to long-cycle sequences.

Vahnavoi is basically right here.

I strongly strongly strongly dislike the "specialists take turns doing things while everyone else watches" model. The party is not a multi-headed hydra who can swap in the "perfect person" at each juncture. The DCs are low enough that unless you've gone out of your way to dump things into the gutter, you can contribute. And none of the checks are do or die--failure comes from choosing the wrong tactics and getting yourself stuck in a no-win state. You have to fail a lot of checks before that happens.

I believe that flaws (and strengths) are a signal to the DM. They're a "plot eyebolt" (an attachment point for a plot hook). Yes, I am going to have NPCs come up and talk to the unsociable person. Or people who will only listen to the urchin barbarian, not the noble bard. Who you are matters way more than what your modifiers are. And no, many times you can't Help with social things--more than one person talking just gets in the way. Been there, seen that in real life. "Butt out, I'm talking to your buddy here."

On the same note, there will be times when the paladin (immune to fear) gets to ignore a fear effect targeted at them. Or the rogue with Evasion gets to laugh at the fireball.

Same goes for someone who dumped STR into the gutter. They're going to have to make STR checks. Or the person who can't handle melee combat--things are going to get into their face. Or the inverse--if you only have melee capabilities, things will, inevitably, be at range. Same with INT checks. I don't care if you dumped INT into the gutter--you will have to make INT checks for things. And no, your smart buddy can't save you from it. Short version: your choices matter. You can't dump things, turning that into stronger strengths and then complain that you're not good at stuff. That was your choice, you pay the consequences. Otherwise it's just free build points. And if I wanted to give free build points, I'd have done that up front.

I don't do "one success to win" checks[0]. They're pointless. Checks are either individual and targeted (You, over there, make a X check) and their success or failure matters, or they're group checks, which use the group check rules.

[0] Edit: To be more precise, I do use them, but they're a smokescreen. They're basically a guaranteed pass, letting the characters feel like they earned something I was totally planning on giving them anyway. Effectively they're a bit of dice chatter, nothing more. For anything that actually matters, I do one of the other two types.

[Max_Killjoy]

Vahnavoi is basically right here.

I strongly strongly strongly dislike the "specialists take turns doing things while everyone else watches" model. The party is not a multi-headed hydra who can swap in the "perfect person" at each juncture. The DCs are low enough that unless you've gone out of your way to dump things into the gutter, you can contribute. And none of the checks are do or die--failure comes from choosing the wrong tactics and getting yourself stuck in a no-win state. You have to fail a lot of checks before that happens.

I believe that flaws (and strengths) are a signal to the DM. They're a "plot eyebolt" (an attachment point for a plot hook). Yes, I am going to have NPCs come up and talk to the unsociable person. Or people who will only listen to the urchin barbarian, not the noble bard. Who you are matters way more than what your modifiers are. And no, many times you can't Help with social things--more than one person talking just gets in the way. Been there, seen that in real life. "Butt out, I'm talking to your buddy here."

On the same note, there will be times when the paladin (immune to fear) gets to ignore a fear effect targeted at them. Or the rogue with Evasion gets to laugh at the fireball.

Same goes for someone who dumped STR into the gutter. They're going to have to make STR checks. Or the person who can't handle melee combat--things are going to get into their face. Or the inverse--if you only have melee capabilities, things will, inevitably, be at range. Same with INT checks. I don't care if you dumped INT into the gutter--you will have to make INT checks for things. And no, your smart buddy can't save you from it. Short version: your choices matter. You can't dump things, turning that into stronger strengths and then complain that you're not good at stuff. That was your choice, you pay the consequences. Otherwise it's just free build points. And if I wanted to give free build points, I'd have done that up front.

I don't do "one success to win" checks[0]. They're pointless. Checks are either individual and targeted (You, over there, make a X check) and their success or failure matters, or they're group checks, which use the group check rules.

[0] Edit: To be more precise, I do use them, but they're a smokescreen. They're basically a guaranteed pass, letting the characters feel like they earned something I was totally planning on giving them anyway. Effectively they're a bit of dice chatter, nothing more. For anything that actually matters, I do one of the other two types.


(And adjacent to this, as far as I'm concerned, don't dump-stat things and then expect to ahem "roleplay" around those limitations to the character, by fastidiously using player-layer knowledge and abilities, and fastidious avoidance of actual rolls, to avoid the character-layer result of the build-time choices.)

But... I will make allowances for the player who, for example, genuinely doesn't enjoy lots of character social interaction in their gaming, and not look at their lack of mechanical investment as an invitation to poke that sore spot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

(And adjacent to this, as far as I'm concerned, don't dump-stat things and then expect to ahem "roleplay" around those limitations to the character, by fastidiously using player-layer knowledge and abilities, and fastidious avoidance of actual rolls, to avoid the character-layer result of the build-time choices.)

But... I will make allowances for the player who, for example, genuinely doesn't enjoy lots of character social interaction in their gaming, and not look at their lack of mechanical investment as an invitation to poke that sore spot.

If you just don't enjoy it, tell me that. You'll still have to make the occasional check, but I won't press. And even the "default" dump in 5e (-1 modifier, no proficiency) is enough to contribute most of the time--when the majority of DCs are either 10 or 15 and failure just means the conversation takes a slightly different path, contributing isn't hard.

It's the people who try to get bennies for taking theoretical flaws and then whine when those flaws become actual that grind my gears.

Edit: as an example--I had a player who was super shy. She played a huge hulking barbarian whose first instinct was "I hit them with my axe." I still had her make an occasional social check, but they were based around being intimidating ("Gonna axe you a question"), generally in a support role. Such as when they were interrogating a captured NPC who happened to be a coward. The sweet-talking bard wasn't being very successful (Persuasion had a high DC due to his nature, plus they weren't hitting the things the NPC cared about). But he definitely was willing to talk once the giant "lizard person" (dragonborn, but in an area those aren't common) mentioned that she was hungry and gave him a meaningful look. Charisma (Intimidation), at advantage (hitting a weak point), plus a low DC (because he was a coward).

[Vahnavoi]

This sort of loops back to the start of this thread.

Choosing a bad strategy and then trying to play a game avoiding the pitfalls of that strategy makes sense, if you're doing it for extra challenge. For example, while attempting to never fight is a bad strategy in D&D, there still is a huge space of possible D&D scenarios which are vincible without ever fighting. So if there's a possibility a scenario you're about to play is in that design space, you could give it a shot, just to see if you can pull it off. This requires accepting the possibility of the player being stuck in an unwinnable challenge, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This sort of loops back to the start of this thread.

Choosing a bad strategy and then trying to play a game avoiding the pitfalls of that strategy makes sense, if you're doing it for extra challenge. For example, while attempting to never fight is a bad strategy in D&D, there still is a huge space of possible D&D scenarios which are vincible without ever fighting. So if there's a possibility a scenario you're about to play is in that design space, you could give it a shot, just to see if you can pull it off. This requires accepting the possibility of the player being stuck in an unwinnable challenge, though.

There's a big difference (in my mind) between single player games, where this sort of "self-imposed challenge" is totally fine, and cooperative games, where it requires enthusiastic, up front buy in (not just avoiding confrontation but being annoyed by it, but actually liking the idea) from everyone else, DM intended.

I'm much more willing to create scenarios that avoid combat if everyone says "let's run a combat-light game" (whether that's one where combat just doesn't come up much or one where the presumption is that there's almost always a way to defuse combat scenarios). Same with social-lite or exploration-lite games. If one person, acting on their own, decides to put the party through hard mode for their own fun...that's not something I'm comfortable with. Character building is a conversation with compromise IMO, both with the group and with the DM. It's not a matter of right, where everyone gets to make their own decisions, the rest of the party notwithstanding. Everyone has to agree on what kind of game you'll be playing. And yes, this includes the DM not unilaterally deciding "hey, you signed up for a heavy combat game (or vice versa), but now it's going to be all social manipulation/all combat." That's not fair play IMO.

[Willie the Duck]

But... I will make allowances for the player who, for example, genuinely doesn't enjoy lots of character social interaction in their gaming, and not look at their lack of mechanical investment as an invitation to poke that sore spot.

Games with multicomponent character-build systems (GURPS as an example) ought to have 'milquetoast' or 'bouncer' advantages where someone just fades into the background or stands in the background looking menacing, but either way doesn't invite conversation. It'd pair nicely with the 'common sense' advantage such games often have.

[Tanarii]

(And adjacent to this, as far as I'm concerned, don't dump-stat things and then expect to ahem "roleplay" around those limitations to the character, by fastidiously using player-layer knowledge and abilities, and fastidious avoidance of actual rolls, to avoid the character-layer result of the build-time choices.)
Depends.

If they avoid doing things due to dump-stat weaknesses and thus don't have to make rolls based on them as often, that automatically is generating appropriate roleplaying of a low ability score. And on those occasions when they have to make a roll based on them in the course of events, and have a high likelihood of failure, then also working as intended.

If they're trying to use gaming the GM to succeed in a task instead of making a roll using a dump-stat, then that's not working as intended, either on the part of the player of the GM if they allow it. Classic example being dumping Cha-type abilities and then trying to persuade the DM by their pretty talking a roll isn't needed. (And I assume this is what you're talking about?)

That's not to say that every in-character approach (appropriate content of the talking vs the target, in the example) should automatically require a roll of come kind. Smart decision making might obviate a roll. But trying to bypass inherent character skill by replacing with player skill shouldn't. Not meaning Player Skill (with caps), which is usually a term that means smart decision making.

[kyoryu]

If they avoid doing things due to dump-stat weaknesses and thus don't have to make rolls based on them as often, that automatically is generating appropriate roleplaying of a low ability score. And on those occasions when they have to make a roll based on them in the course of events, and have a high likelihood of failure, then also working as intended.


I've never understood why people seem to get so obsessed with making people use weak skills/stats, especially in skill-based games.

I mean, we don't complain that the wizard doesn't jump into melee in D&D in most cases.

The trick there is making sure that their "optimal" path has negative consequences. IOW, it's not that interesting to put the high-strength character in a situation where they have to use intelligence as a rolled stat - it's more interesting to put them in a situation where they totally can still use strength, but there will be some consequences for doing so.

[Batcathat]

I've never understood why people seem to get so obsessed with making people use weak skills/stats, especially in skill-based games.

I mean, we don't complain that the wizard doesn't jump into melee in D&D in most cases.

The trick there is making sure that their "optimal" path has negative consequences. IOW, it's not that interesting to put the high-strength character in a situation where they have to use intelligence as a rolled stat - it's more interesting to put them in a situation where they totally can still use strength, but there will be some consequences for doing so.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting to occasionally push characters out of the comfort zone and see what happens if the heavily armored fighter have to be sneaky or the smelly barbarian have to be charming, or whatever. It shouldn't be done too often, but now and then I think it's quite fun.

Ensuring that their preferred method has consequences can also be interesting, but I don't see why it'd be automatically preferable to the above.

[Satinavian]

If the players plan around their weaknesses and thus avoid rolls on them, they still feel those weaknesses in terms of limited options and/or extra effort. That is enough for me.

And that is very different from roleplaying around them. Dumping Charisma and then "playing out" lying to the guard without a roll is not acceptable. Dumping Charisma and then sneaking around the guard so that you don't have to talk to him very well is.

[kyoryu]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting to occasionally push characters out of the comfort zone and see what happens if the heavily armored fighter have to be sneaky or the smelly barbarian have to be charming, or whatever. It shouldn't be done too often, but now and then I think it's quite fun.

Ensuring that their preferred method has consequences can also be interesting, but I don't see why it'd be automatically preferable to the above.

It can be interesting occasionally, but I think it should be the exception, not the rule.

It also feels more aggressive in some ways.... like, if I have a character that wants to sneak through everything, and sneaking gets them into trouble, I kind of feel like "okay, well, that makes sense." OTOH, if sneaky character is put in a position where sneaking is impossible, and they have to do the thing they're bad at, that feels less good as a character, more punishing.

But I also wonder why this rears its head in skill-based systems more. We rarely hear about wizards having to beat things down with a stick, or fighters having to figure out how to magic their way out of something. I suspect it's because in GURPS or something, the fact that you bought a high fighting skill doesn't mean that you can't get a sneak skill, so there's an impulse to..... make sure you feel the weight of that decision? While in class-based systems the choices are at the class level and harder to avoid, so it's more, I guess "understandable"?


If the players plan around their weaknesses and thus avoid rolls on them, they still feel those weaknesses in terms of limited options and/or extra effort. That is enough for me.

And that is very different from roleplaying around them. Dumping Charisma and then "playing out" lying to the guard without a roll is not acceptable. Dumping Charisma and then sneaking around the guard so that you don't have to talk to him very well is.

Agreed on both counts.