PDA

View Full Version : flaws - have i missed something?



xPANCAKEx
2008-10-10, 02:46 PM
i've been looking over a few sites like d20srd and flaws come up.

whats the advantages of taking them? They seem entirely negative? Is there any incentive to take them?

Fax Celestis
2008-10-10, 02:48 PM
Um...you get bonus feats?

NEO|Phyte
2008-10-10, 02:48 PM
i've been looking over a few sites like d20srd and flaws come up.

whats the advantages of taking them? They seem entirely negative? Is there any incentive to take them?

The incentive to taking flaws is that you get a free feat for taking one.

Demons_eye
2008-10-10, 02:49 PM
You can only have two right?

kamikasei
2008-10-10, 02:50 PM
Each flaw a player selects entitles his character to a bonus feat.

Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm).

They're a way to get extra feats into a build at the cost of worsening some (presumably less important) aspect of your character. Or, I suppose, a way to build a character who you see as having the relevant flaw, but with a built-in compensation to help avoid screwing yourself over.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-10, 02:59 PM
You can only have two right?

Unless DMs rules you can have more, but by RAW 2 is max.

Saph
2008-10-10, 02:59 PM
They're a way to get extra feats into a build at the cost of worsening some (presumably less important) aspect of your character. Or, I suppose, a way to build a character who you see as having the relevant flaw, but with a built-in compensation to help avoid screwing yourself over.

Most often, they're a way to twink out a character by taking a flaw that has no negative impact at all, giving him something for nothing.

They've always struck me as poorly designed, and I've yet to see a DM who allows them. GURPS and White Wolf have similar systems for Disadvantages, and both did it much better, IMO.

- Saph

Fax Celestis
2008-10-10, 03:02 PM
Most often, they're a way to twink out a character by taking a flaw that has no negative impact at all, giving him something for nothing.

They've always struck me as poorly designed, and I've yet to see a DM who allows them. GURPS and White Wolf have similar systems for Disadvantages, and both did it much better, IMO.

- Saph

You're kidding, right? White Wolf's Merits/Flaws system is hella broken in oWoD. They fixed it in nWoD by taking out flaws.

kamikasei
2008-10-10, 03:02 PM
Most often, they're a way to twink out a character by taking a flaw that has no negative impact at all, giving him something for nothing.

Well, you know, I was being charitable.

But yes. If you want to allow them, be sure and stay involved in adjudicating which a given character may take. They lend themselves very heavily to min-maxing.

Saph
2008-10-10, 03:05 PM
You're kidding, right? White Wolf's Merits/Flaws system is hella broken in oWoD. They fixed it in nWoD by taking out flaws.

Honestly? I think they're still better than D&D's Flaws. But I admit I haven't played enough White Wolf to know for sure (the only one I've tried much is Old Mage).

I've played a fair bit of GURPS, though, and the Disadvantages in there worked pretty well. They nearly killed the party multiple times, but what do you expect when every PC in a 6-man party takes 40 points of Mental Disadvantages? At least it made for some good stories . . .

- Saph

JMobius
2008-10-10, 03:07 PM
You're kidding, right? White Wolf's Merits/Flaws system is hella broken in oWoD. They fixed it in nWoD by taking out flaws.

Which is unfortunate, as some of the flaws from oWoD really were quite cool. I don't think they were so bad, so long as one adheres to the adage for all flaw systems: "A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't worth anything".

I don't think the flaws really work well for D&D, because there isn't really any form of character 'currency' that they can grant that won't be really messy. Feats are really quite large units, and many of them can far outweigh whatever the mediocre drawback imposed by a (usually irrelevant) flaw.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-10, 03:14 PM
I don't think the flaws really work well for D&D, because there isn't really any form of character 'currency' that they can grant that won't be really messy. Feats are really quite large units, and many of them can far outweigh whatever the mediocre drawback imposed by a (usually irrelevant) flaw.

The Traits system (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm) works okay, but that's because it's a one-for-one bonus, instead of an open-ended benefit for a specific flaw.

NEO|Phyte
2008-10-10, 03:16 PM
But yes. If you want to allow them, be sure and stay involved in adjudicating which a given character may take. They lend themselves very heavily to min-maxing.

One method for such that I've adopted for games I run is that the DM gets to pick your first flaw, should you choose to take any. Then you get to pick/make something that both fits the character, and has an actual impact without being overly crippling. For instance, I've got a Dvati in my game, with the warrior of the phalanx (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Warrior_of_The_Phalanx,all) flaw, the idea being that he's so accustomed to fighting side-by-side with himself that he has difficulties when separated.
(in the event of that last sentence not making any sense to you, Dvati are a race wherein the soul is shared between two bodies, as a single being.)

Lord Tataraus
2008-10-10, 04:22 PM
Personally, I do allow flaws, but with some restrictions. I prefer players to take things like phobias as flaws, most others usually aren't significant enough to come up in game and I try to limit it to 1 flaw. Usually a flaw will come up every 4 or 5 sessions, otherwise it isn't significant, oh, and I don't let casters take them.

JaxGaret
2008-10-10, 04:30 PM
The only reason why GURPS' Disadvantages work better than D&D's Flaw system is because the Disadvantages are so much more heavily negative in comparison to what you get back, so you're not just getting a strict power boost.

In other words, from an optimization standpoint, there's really very little reason to take a Disadvantage in GURPS, because it is going to hurt you more than it helps you. It can be fun, though.

You can simply do the same thing with D&D flaws - nerf them into the ground - and it'll be equally balanced.

Saph
2008-10-10, 04:37 PM
The only reason why GURPS' Disadvantages work better than D&D's Flaw system is because the Disadvantages are so much more heavily negative in comparison to what you get back.

I think that's pretty much the only way to get Disadvantages/Flaws to work, though. Otherwise players will just pick ones which will never affect them.

Knights of the Dinner Table has some brilliant spoofs of this in their storylines, especially for their Cattlepunk and Spacehack stories. "I took the Male Pattern Baldness, Phobia of Monitor Lizards, and Allergy: Seaweed Flaws to gain an extra 1,865 build points, which I used to max out every weapon and armour skill in the book."

- Saph

ocato
2008-10-10, 04:38 PM
Flaws work fine if you use them as intended. That is to say you and your player sit down and work out how your flaw affects your character and why it should give you X feat. For example, your player might want the Jotunbrud {link scrubbed} feat from Races of Faerun, making him function as larger for various purposes. So, you and the player might go over the list of flaws and decided that the Brash {link scrubbed} flaw is both logical and fair, being as a person who was born large and powerful might marginalize the threat of others as he moves through a battlefield. Letting the Two-Handed Axe Chargemonkey take Shaky, however, is lazy DMing and inviting min/maxing.

JaxGaret
2008-10-10, 04:38 PM
I think that's pretty much the only way to get Disadvantages/Flaws to work, though. Otherwise players will just pick ones which will never affect them.

I agree, that was my point.

JaxGaret
2008-10-10, 04:41 PM
So, you and the player might go over the list of flaws and decided that the Brash {link scrubbed} flaw is both logical and fair, being as a person who was born large and powerful might marginalize the threat of others as he moves through a battlefield.

My Shock Trooper/Leap Attacking Crusader would have pretty much embodied that Flaw. I think his AC would have gotten down to around zero on AoOs if he had had it :smallsmile:

Oslecamo
2008-10-10, 05:03 PM
I think that's pretty much the only way to get Disadvantages/Flaws to work, though. Otherwise players will just pick ones which will never affect them.


I allow flaws in all the games I DM whitout restriction, and personally I've yet to have troubles with it. People will normally use them to get that crazy feat chain before lv20 and not exactly to try to become Pun-Pun.

Of course, then I go and give flaws to my NPCs, wich makes for some nasty suprises:smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2008-10-10, 05:03 PM
They nearly killed the party multiple times, but what do you expect when every PC in a 6-man party takes 40 points of Mental Disadvantages?

That sounds vaguely familiar. In my experience, using any kind of flaw system somehow gives players the impression that their character isn't complete without some kind of flaw, and players do seem to gravitate towards phobias, hallucinations, honor codes, and other mental stuff (as opposed to being blind, crippled, etc).

Eventually that got old, and I quit allowing flaws for point benefit. The way I figure, if you take a disadvantage and play it well, you get bonus XP for good roleplaying. If you take a disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage you, well, you don't. Voila.

Hal
2008-10-10, 05:04 PM
I've seen it done where the DM got to decide what the flaw was if you were going to take one. It usually involved a little off the books type of stuff. It tended to be much more interesting that way.

For example, one player ended up with a flaw of narcolepsy (I can't recall what he received for this, but it had to be good). If his character ever rolled a 1 (skill checks, initiative, attack rolls), he instantly fell asleep.

I can't in good conscience take a flaw that doesn't affect me in any way, so I find non-traditional solutions like that to be very interesting. I toyed with a character who would've had a Mark of Justice on him as a flaw, but I didn't end up playing him.

afroakuma
2008-10-10, 05:08 PM
The other way to make it work is to be an absolutely diabolical DM. Might I refer you to Darths & Droids' Pete, who took Short and Mute as flaws. The DM refuses to let him speak in-character without using a series of humiliating bleeps and bloops.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-10, 05:31 PM
The other way to make it work is to be an absolutely diabolical DM. Might I refer you to Darths & Droids' Pete,

If you think that's a diabolical DM, you should definitely read DM Of The Rings...

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-10, 05:46 PM
If you think that's a diabolical DM, you should definitely read DM Of The Rings...Neither of those is diabolical. This (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=56) is (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=357) diabolical (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=118).

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-10, 05:51 PM
That sounds vaguely familiar. In my experience, using any kind of flaw system somehow gives players the impression that their character isn't complete without some kind of flaw, and players do seem to gravitate towards phobias, hallucinations, honor codes, and other mental stuff (as opposed to being blind, crippled, etc).

Eventually that got old, and I quit allowing flaws for point benefit. The way I figure, if you take a disadvantage and play it well, you get bonus XP for good roleplaying. If you take a disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage you, well, you don't. Voila.

This is the way, and the path to enlightenment.

Flaws, disadvantages and the like only work if you don't get anything up-front, and only get the benefit from sessions where it comes up.

AstralFire
2008-10-10, 06:15 PM
I don't usually allow flaws, but I inherited a game where a DM did allow them.

I handled this by doing my damned best to make them feel the flaws without actually screwing them over; a flaw is one of those few times I think a DM is openly invited and has an inarguable right to harass a player.

The ones with that anti-ranged flaw regretted it when I started throwing flying enemies at them (and that wasn't even intentional); the one with Hydrophobia (a homebrew feat) felt the pain when the group began an underwater arc with their homebrew submarine.

Ascension
2008-10-10, 06:20 PM
On a similar note, the Savage Worlds... I think they call them Hindrances, I'm away from my books... are a really, really mixed bag. You have huge physical disabilities mixed in with character flaws that shouldn't have nearly as big an impact as the mechanics suggest. For example, IIRC being one-legged and having a personal code of honor are both ranked as major hindrances... In fact, (again, IIRC) the majority of the mental hindrances are "good" character traits... methinks one of the designers has a really cynical outlook on life.

On the other hand, some of the hindrances are great fun. There's one in particular I remember which, when given to a hero, forces them to spend the first round of each combat boasting about their skills and/or threatening their opponent. If you give it to a villain it renders the bad guy incapable of delivering the finishing blow to the heroes... he has to leave them alive but beaten as living testaments to his superiority.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-10, 06:22 PM
I've used them to trade in my familiar as I never use it.

lin_fusan
2008-10-10, 06:25 PM
One player in my game took flaws that made him nearly blind, deaf, and irritable (negative spot, search, listen, and charisma), but turned his ranger/fighter into a untouchable killing machine.

What slayed me is that he got pissed that he would fail Charisma-based checks in high-roleplaying situations (like convincing townsfolk to follow his command) or perception based checks involving surprise and ambushes.

I found that his Wisdom was so low, that his Will save was a negative modifier. Any spellcaster could charm or dominate him, but I never got to that point.

I really should have nixed his idea, but I wanted to see how badly he'd break his character. And he did...

AstralFire
2008-10-10, 06:25 PM
I've used them to trade in my familiar as I never use it.

...Couldn't you just not summon your familiar instead of taking a flaw?

How does your Wisdom get that low, by the way? I don't recall many ability mod penalties among the flaws, and it should be hard to pull that off past about level 6.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-10, 06:29 PM
I think Shadowrun (4E) is the only RPG I've come across where a Code of Honor is a positive quality.

Oh, and Conan d20. You do not want to be honorless in that game.


...Couldn't you just not summon your familiar instead of taking a flaw?

He wanted to switch a class feature he didn't want for something useful. I'd allow trading a Familiar for a feat even without a flaw, personally. They're a pain to keep track of.

Lycar
2008-10-10, 07:14 PM
Flaws. Hrm they can be fun. Honestly, how can you make a Vargr (http://traveller.wikia.com/wiki/Vargr) in GURPS Traveller (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/traveller/) and not take the 'overconfident' flaw? :smallbiggrin:

But recently, I found myself succumbing to the lure of flaws. I made a character, who was supposed to be a lightly armed bodyguard/protector type, prior to entering adventuring. I had the idea that he should be able to use a net for non-lethal takedowns, or just to slow a would-be assassin down enough for his charge to escape.

But since a net is an exotic weapon, you need a feat to be proficient. I just didn't seem to be able to fit that in among all the other feats I wanted for him. But flaws were allowed, so I took a look at them.

And then I realized, if I took the 'shaky' flaw, forever would he take a -2 penalty on all ranged attacks. But given the fact that the non-proficiency penalty for a weapon is -4, he ends up being better with a net, with the flaw, then without it. :smallconfused:

And that for a DEX 10 character, mind you. Now I still wonder, does this count as shameless min-maxing? :smalleek:

I'm just not much of a fan of flaws but the disadvantages in GURPS are pretty well thought out I believe. And if you play your characters as overconfident anyway, why not take those tasty 10 build points while you are at it. Just don't complain when all veterans look down upon you. :smalltongue:

In D&D though, the flaws seem like a hasty addition to the existing rules because 'every system uses flaws, so we need them too!'. Pretty much like non-weapon proficiencies were sorta 'tacked on' to AD&D. And the skill system in 3.0 and 3.5 still has this 'tacked-on' feel. Although they glossed over the most glaring cracks.

Lycar

Curmudgeon
2008-10-10, 07:23 PM
I think Flaws are great. As they guarantee advantages to the PCs, as a GM I make sure their disadvantages are guaranteed to impact the PCs with some frequency. It's the only way to be fair about the system.

NeoVid
2008-10-10, 07:37 PM
You're kidding, right? White Wolf's Merits/Flaws system is hella broken in oWoD. They fixed it in nWoD by taking out flaws.

Just because the flaws system in nWoD is so much simpler doesn't mean it's gone entirely. Since the current method only gives you extra XP for your flaw if it actually screws you over during the session, a flaw that won't hurt your character will be worth nothing, while one you can't avoid constantly ruining things for you will pay off every session.

Though you still need to show some sense. I was in one campaign that included a blind character, and the ST eventually stopped giving her bonus XP, since dealing with the character was getting so annoying.

"What's in the next room?"
"It sounds like an altar!"

Fax Celestis
2008-10-10, 07:41 PM
Just because the flaws system in nWoD is so much simpler doesn't mean it's gone entirely. Since the current method only gives you extra XP for your flaw if it actually screws you over during the session, a flaw that won't hurt your character will be worth nothing, while one you can't avoid constantly ruining things for you will pay off every session.

Though you still need to show some sense. I was in one campaign that included a blind character, and the ST eventually stopped giving her bonus XP, since dealing with the character was getting so annoying.

"What's in the next room?"
"It sounds like an altar!"

Well, okay, granted, the new method is functional. But I was more referring to the direct version in oWoD, where there was flaws that granted free points that you could use to buy more abilities.

In a LARP I was in for a while, I played a blind, short, child (11 points of flaws) vampire with a derangement (obsession) for two more points. This let me buy down my generation to 8. I mean, seriously--that's kinda ridiculous.

sonofzeal
2008-10-10, 07:44 PM
Having used both GURPS and D&D flaws, I have to say that I think D&D did it better, but that its failures are more evident. D&D disadvantages are almost universally bad for EVERY character who might want to take them, with a few exceptions (shaky/noncombatant specifically). GURPS disadvantages, on the other hand, are ridiculously easy to optimize should you so choose. I know people who can actually turn their "disadvantages" into things that are beneficial to the character, whereas with D&D flaws that's pretty much impossible.

On the other hand, D&D as a whole is much more biased towards aggressive optimizing. In GURPS, so much of your character points potentially go into "fluff" that the whole mentality is different.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-10, 08:04 PM
As I've said before, Flaws are the paving stones on the road to Munchkindom.

LONG
IRL, nobody is compensated for problems they have to deal with, and indeed, in a game without Flaws few people create characters with them unless they feel it is an important part of their character. They rarely have mechanical effects, but they always have RP effects, and these RP effects help to establish one's character. The most interesting characters in fiction are not perfect beings, they have strengths and weaknesses like everyone else.

However, once you start allowing people to take Flaws for mechanical advantage, they become just another thing on your character sheet, rather than part of your character. You have an idea for your character - say, a talented sniper - and you want to make him really good at shooting. Without Flaws, you arrange your stats and skills and, having done what you can mechanically, you may begin thinking about why he is the way he is, and what he thinks. Perhaps you decide that he is a sniper because he's afraid of personal interactions, and when he was drafted for the local army he signed up for the riflery corps to get out of all the hand-to-hand combat that other grunts needed to go through. So... he's distant then? Okay, then when you talk with other PCs you'll be a man of few words and perhaps a little blunt. Not a bad start.

Now add Flaws. Well, you'd really like to boost you rifle skill so you look over the Flaw chart. Huh, he has a low CHA anyhow, so let's give him Anti-Social, it's only a -2 to Diplomacy checks anyhow. Hmm... hey, he's not going to be in close combat either, so he'll take Featherweight (-2 to melee attack & damage). That's great, now his Riflery is huge. Hmm... well, I'd like him to have a nicer rifle, so how about we give him Weak Stomach so that I can get the Merit "Army Training" which lets me start with better weapons.

As you can see, things that you added because you thought they'd be neat to RP in case #1 just become things you add to your character sheet in case #2. The temptation to just hang on more Flaws is incredible, and it cheapens any RP choices that player make.

Summary
Flaws make what would otherwise be conscious RP choices into pure min/maxing. Even the most conscientious RPer will be tempted to add some quirk to their character for the extra points, rather than as a conscious choice.

Additionally:
I don't buy the argument that they "aid customization" either. You can work things out with your DM if you really need the mechanical changes, but most of the "customization" parts of your character should come through RP or basic character creation choices (like gear or skill choice). If you have trouble thinking up quirks for characters, then may I recommend thumbing through some of the Flaw tables for games you have and just writing down the names of each Flaw? That way you can turn to it for inspiration rather than as a way to get a few more powers.

Disclaimer
I do not think people who like Flaw systems are inherently munchkins, or bad RPers. Rather my point is that Flaws cheapen legitimate RP choices by making them part of the initial min/maxing that always goes on during character creation, and that such an incentive can be harmful to RP in general.

AstralFire
2008-10-10, 08:10 PM
Good analysis, and I agree.

Collin152
2008-10-10, 08:41 PM
Well, okay, granted, the new method is functional. But I was more referring to the direct version in oWoD, where there was flaws that granted free points that you could use to buy more abilities.

In a LARP I was in for a while, I played a blind, short, child (11 points of flaws) vampire with a derangement (obsession) for two more points. This let me buy down my generation to 8. I mean, seriously--that's kinda ridiculous.

And leads me to believe that Caine is a blind, short horrendously insane child.

AstralFire
2008-10-10, 08:49 PM
And leads me to believe that Caine is a blind, short horrendously insane child.

Why else would you murder your little brother?

Ascension
2008-10-10, 08:52 PM
In a LARP I was in for a while, I played a blind, short, child (11 points of flaws) vampire with a derangement (obsession) for two more points. This let me buy down my generation to 8. I mean, seriously--that's kinda ridiculous.

How do you do things like that in a LARP? I thought everyone was more or less forced by the limitations of the human body to play a heroic version of themselves when LARPing.

AstralFire
2008-10-10, 08:53 PM
How do you do things like that in a LARP? I thought everyone was more or less forced by the limitations of the human body to play a heroic version of themselves when LARPing.

Awkward silence while Ascension figures out the truth behind Fax_Celestis. He's secretly from Luxembourg.

Talya
2008-10-10, 08:56 PM
Allowing flaws is a nice alternative to going with feats at all odd levels instead of every third level. (There's never enough feats to customize a character unless you're a fighter, and who wants to be a fighter?)

Collin152
2008-10-10, 08:59 PM
Why else would you murder your little brother?

Seems awful hard to do while blind and under the impression that your food talks to you.

AstralFire
2008-10-10, 09:01 PM
Seems awful hard to do while blind and under the impression that your food talks to you.

Nah. If you're insane, you can just start attacking things at random. Sooner or later you will hurt the person you don't like and the things you do like that you broke you can just keep alive in your heart!

Roderick_BR
2008-10-10, 09:06 PM
Most often, they're a way to twink out a character by taking a flaw that has no negative impact at all, giving him something for nothing.

They've always struck me as poorly designed, and I've yet to see a DM who allows them. GURPS and White Wolf have similar systems for Disadvantages, and both did it much better, IMO.

- Saph
Only if an unexperienced DM allows them. Most games with a flaw system always suggests that a player shouldn't be allowed to get a flaw that doesn't affect him. Some games even say that if a flaw never actually affects the char, the DM should ask him to pick another, or simply taking away the related feat/bonus/trait, since he technically is not "paying" for it.
And if you remember, flaws are generally "stronger" than feats, and it's explained right there. For example, you can have Dodge, a situational bonus to AC (need to choose an opponent. everyone else attacks you normally). The "flaw version" is one that worsens your AC by 1 point... and us ALWAYS active. Weapon focus gives +1 in one weapon. The "flaw version" gives you a penalty to melee attacks with ANY weapon, and so on. Of course, it doesn't take in account broken feats, where in this case it's tottally ok to take a flaw for it.

Ascension
2008-10-10, 09:15 PM
And if you remember, flaws are generally "stronger" than feats, and it's explained right there.

Shock Trooper lets you (among other things) trade AC for damage when you charge, up to your BAB.

The FLAW VERSION of Shock Trooper takes away your BAB in AC permanently. That's right, the better you get at fighting the worse you get at defending yourself. Muahahahahahahahahah!

Am I right?

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-10, 10:08 PM
Why else would you murder your little brother?

Because he tore the cover off my $3000 Namor comic?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-10, 10:15 PM
How do you do things like that in a LARP? I thought everyone was more or less forced by the limitations of the human body to play a heroic version of themselves when LARPing.

Yes, that's why no LARP includes magic or vampires or werewolves or elves, and why combat leads to serious injuries...

It's a game, there's a bunch of rules. You wear a blue tag or make a weird gang-sign to show everyone you're invisible, and very possibly RPS at some point to resolve this or that conflict. LARPing a short child is a lot more feasible, physically, than LARPing magic, but both can be done.

Smeggedoff
2008-10-10, 11:58 PM
My second ever GURPS character was a vampire with over a 150 points in flaws
My DM allowed it because they were all classical vampire flaws (can't cross running water, fear of garlic etc) and I needed the points to get all of the classical vampire powers
never did get to use my wolf shifting power AND I still got paralysed and beheaded by a scottish ninja because I couldn't afford the merit which makes you immune to targeted anatomy attacks (boy was he surprised when I came after him later, I COULD afford to not be killed by beheading :smallamused:)

the character ended up fairly balanced actually

JaxGaret
2008-10-11, 09:05 AM
scottish ninja

Win.


I COULD afford to not be killed by beheading :smallamused:

the character ended up fairly balanced actually

Sarcasm? :smallsmile:

Roderick_BR
2008-10-11, 10:50 AM
Shock Trooper lets you (among other things) trade AC for damage when you charge, up to your BAB.

The FLAW VERSION of Shock Trooper takes away your BAB in AC permanently. That's right, the better you get at fighting the worse you get at defending yourself. Muahahahahahahahahah!

Am I right?
That's like picking Monkey Grip instead of Power Attack... hehe...
And don't forget, as I mentioned, flaws are compared to weaker feats (weapon focus, dodge), not the stronger ones like Troop Shocker, metamagic...

@Tsotha-lanti: In Vampire: The Maskerade, Code of Honor is also a positive trait. It gives you bonuses to resist your bloodlust when you want to avoid harming some people that you choose to protect (medic, women, kids, etc).

Cybren
2008-10-11, 11:21 AM
The only reason why GURPS' Disadvantages work better than D&D's Flaw system is because the Disadvantages are so much more heavily negative in comparison to what you get back, so you're not just getting a strict power boost.

In other words, from an optimization standpoint, there's really very little reason to take a Disadvantage in GURPS, because it is going to hurt you more than it helps you. It can be fun, though.

You can simply do the same thing with D&D flaws - nerf them into the ground - and it'll be equally balanced.

GURPS Disads are significant but a few of them and a handful of quirks can be important in fleshing out your character. I mean, they're visible weak spots, but they're visible. And there's a lot of genre-appropriate stuff, too.


I think that's pretty much the only way to get Disadvantages/Flaws to work, though. Otherwise players will just pick ones which will never affect them.

Knights of the Dinner Table has some brilliant spoofs of this in their storylines, especially for their Cattlepunk and Spacehack stories. "I took the Male Pattern Baldness, Phobia of Monitor Lizards, and Allergy: Seaweed Flaws to gain an extra 1,865 build points, which I used to max out every weapon and armour skill in the book."

- Saph
Have you played Hackmaster? those are all in there

GURPS disadvantages, on the other hand, are ridiculously easy to optimize should you so choose. I know people who can actually turn their "disadvantages" into things that are beneficial to the character, whereas with D&D flaws that's pretty much impossible.
Eh? In GURPS 4th edition, the only disadvantage that's possible with is Berserk, and, well, you get the wonderful benefit of giving up all active defenses and only being able to move in a straight line to attack enemies. It makes you able to stay alive longer... but if it didn't it would be worth a lot more than -10 points.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-11, 12:00 PM
My second ever GURPS character was a vampire with over a 150 points in flaws
My DM allowed it because they were all classical vampire flaws (can't cross running water, fear of garlic etc) and I needed the points to get all of the classical vampire powers

This is called a racial template in GURPS, and does not count against the limit (40 points by default) on disadvantages.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-11, 12:26 PM
How do you do things like that in a LARP? I thought everyone was more or less forced by the limitations of the human body to play a heroic version of themselves when LARPing.

I wore a blindfold and walked around on my knees.

Riffington
2008-10-13, 12:12 AM
The rule I always had in World of Darkness games was: if you pick a flaw, it's going to come up. It's never going to be *quite* worth it.

And -surprise- people tend not to try to abuse it.

As Astralfire points out, you can do this in D&D too. It's a bit easier in White Wolf type games, but the principle works in every system.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-13, 12:22 AM
The rule I always had in World of Darkness games was: if you pick a flaw, it's going to come up. It's never going to be *quite* worth it.

And -surprise- people tend not to try to abuse it.

My problem with this approach was that every game turned into a Why Did It Have To Be Snakes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhyDidItHaveToBeSnakes) scenario... particularly if the PCs picked a lot of flaws. Worse, it required the DM to be the sort of jerk that sends hordes of golems against Rogues or Huge opponents against Trip-Fighers; you spent all your time designing games to screw over your PCs. It annoyed the PCs ("man, why can't I ever get a break?") and limited the DM.

Feh on that too, say I! Feh!

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-13, 01:10 AM
My problem with this approach was that every game turned into a Why Did It Have To Be Snakes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhyDidItHaveToBeSnakes) scenario... particularly if the PCs picked a lot of flaws. Worse, it required the DM to be the sort of jerk that sends hordes of golems against Rogues or Huge opponents against Trip-Fighers; you spent all your time designing games to screw over your PCs. It annoyed the PCs ("man, why can't I ever get a break?") and limited the DM.

Feh on that too, say I! Feh!

This is why the "flaws/disadvantages give you XP when they come up, rather than points at character creation" approach works oh so much better. The players will try to work them into the game as they feel is appropriate, and get exactly what they deserve in return.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-10-13, 01:36 AM
Most often, they're a way to twink out a character by taking a flaw that has no negative impact at all, giving him something for nothing.

They've always struck me as poorly designed, and I've yet to see a DM who allows them. GURPS and White Wolf have similar systems for Disadvantages, and both did it much better, IMO.

- Saph

Really? I allow flaws often in my campaigns. Yeah, they make a character more powerful since you'll always take a flaw in something you didn't want to focus on anyway. But if you allow everyone to have one plus your major NPCs, what's the difference? They also can add mechanical effects to something you were originally intending to roleplay. And you can finally make that doddering old martial arts master you always wanted by giving him Wis 18 and the Inattentive flaw. =D

Satyr
2008-10-13, 04:22 AM
If a flaw system is used right, it is great way to create more plastic and well-rounded characters who have more depth and are therefre much more interestig than their flatter, flawless counterparts. Obviously, people can abuse it if they really try, but a true munchkin can abuse almost any rule, so why bother? And why limit the possibilities of the non-munchkins becuaase someone else might abuse flaws for the worse?
I normally try to build interesting, multidimensional characters with a certain character depth, and when I sit on the other side of the Gamemaster screen, I encourage my players to do so as well. This is a lot easier with game like Gurps which offers the possibilities to create the desired chraracters with great accuracy and depth of focus, and this is at least partly because of the unequaled system of disadvantages and their balance. Why should I have to suffer from shallow, boring characters when I could have interesting ones - without penalise the players for their more interesting character design?

only1doug
2008-10-13, 04:40 AM
a bunch of us were playing shadowrun points buy generation system, we didn't discuss our characters with each other prior to generating them but sat with the GM and worked them out 1 at a time.

i'd just finished making mine and a friend generated his troll Mage, he needed some flaws to pay for everything (metahuman + caster, hugely expensive).
He chose a severe phobia: Big Cats... the GM and i looked at each other in stunned silence and suggested a bunch of other things for the phobia to be against. he considered the list and said, "nah, big cats. won't encounter them to often hopefully".

My character was a weretiger physadept, he was screwed.

during that game his character never astrally projected or received if i was anywhere nearby (until after i had masking anyway).

Smeggedoff
2008-10-13, 05:02 AM
Sarcasm? :smallsmile:

not at all, I ended up having to staple/sellotape my head back on for the duration after all (My GM ruled that regeneration said nothing about reattatching severed parts)

Riffington
2008-10-13, 08:43 AM
My problem with this approach was that every game turned into a Why Did It Have To Be Snakes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhyDidItHaveToBeSnakes) scenario...

Then you're doing it wrong. There's a middle ground where you use the characters' flaws in moderation. I promise.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-13, 12:37 PM
My character was a weretiger physadept, he was screwed.

during that game his character never astrally projected or received if i was anywhere nearby (until after i had masking anyway).

This sounds like an excellent example of disadvantages working just right, and being "used" by the player who took them. Shadowrun's negative qualities, despite using the ass-backswards "benefit up front" system, tend to be pretty harsh, and something you'll run into inevitably without the GM really making an effor.

kbk
2008-10-13, 01:09 PM
Because of the inherent tendency to min/max with flaws and the power of extra feats at early levels, our house ruling on flaws goes something like this:

You can CHOOSE 2 flaws and get 1 feat.

You can let the DM RANDOMLY select one flaw for one feat. You can do this twice for 2 feats with 2 random flaws.

This usually featured an expanded flaw list that included a few extras relevant to the campaign setting. Sometimes we were particularly cruel with the list, and almost everyone choose their flaws, though I always let the DM randomly choose mine. Its more fun that way.

Saph
2008-10-13, 02:06 PM
And if you remember, flaws are generally "stronger" than feats, and it's explained right there. For example, you can have Dodge, a situational bonus to AC (need to choose an opponent. everyone else attacks you normally). The "flaw version" is one that worsens your AC by 1 point... and us ALWAYS active. Weapon focus gives +1 in one weapon. The "flaw version" gives you a penalty to melee attacks with ANY weapon, and so on. Of course, it doesn't take in account broken feats, where in this case it's tottally ok to take a flaw for it.

It doesn't really work that way. Sure, flaws are stronger than SOME feats, but there's absolutely no reason for a player to pick a weaker feat; they'll pick the best they can find. In practice a character with flaws is almost always stronger than one without.


Really? I allow flaws often in my campaigns. Yeah, they make a character more powerful since you'll always take a flaw in something you didn't want to focus on anyway. But if you allow everyone to have one plus your major NPCs, what's the difference?

It also means you have to bump up all the monsters. Basically, it's a significant amount of work for no appreciable difference (everyone's a bit stronger, and every monster/character has a slightly longer statblock).

I've also got a prejudice against flaws because I've noticed that there tends to be a direct correlation between how many flaws a forum-posted build has and how cheesy it is. I honestly don't think I've seen a single character build where flaws weren't used for the sole reason of making it as powerful as possible.

This doesn't mean that it's impossible to use flaws for RP reasons, but it does mean that when you hear the word 'Flaws' your cheese-dar should start pinging.

- Saph

monty
2008-10-13, 02:16 PM
It doesn't really work that way. Sure, flaws are stronger than SOME feats, but there's absolutely no reason for a player to pick a weaker feat; they'll pick the best they can find. In practice a character with flaws is almost always stronger than one without.

"You mean I get -1 to AC? Good thing I'm an Illusionist with a crappy AC anyway, then. And for my extra feat, I'll take...Leadership."

Person_Man
2008-10-13, 02:51 PM
Flaws work fine if you use them as intended. That is to say you and your player sit down and work out how your flaw affects your character and why it should give you X feat. For example, your player might want the Jotunbrud feat from Races of Faerun, making him function as larger for various purposes. So, you and the player might go over the list of flaws and decided that the Brash flaw is both logical and fair, being as a person who was born large and powerful might marginalize the threat of others as he moves through a battlefield. Letting the Two-Handed Axe Chargemonkey take Shaky, however, is lazy DMing and inviting min/maxing.

My next King of Smack build will definitely be taking the Brash flaw.

Beleriphon
2008-10-13, 03:01 PM
I think the only system that has seriously addressed flaws is Muntants and Masterminds, where you get points back based on the severity and likeliness of the flaw coming up.

And they have a variety of flaw types. Flaws could be something like Cyclops having an always active power, and using the point to buy a device that lets him control the always active power, or Green Latern having his ring not able to affect yellow things. Those count as a sufficently limited in game flaw. If its anything else M&M calls it a complication, which gets the character a Hero Point (to temporarirly) make themselves better at a single task when the GM brings the complication up. And complications can be flaws that wont occur frequently enough to warrant points, or they can be RP only functions that have no mechanical value in game.

Even then flaws can be pretty broken in M&M without GM supervision, which is generally why the books always encourage a GM to okay, or veto certain combinatinos and then work with the player to get something more appropriate.

horseboy
2008-10-13, 04:01 PM
My problem with this approach was that every game turned into a Why Did It Have To Be Snakes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhyDidItHaveToBeSnakes) scenario... particularly if the PCs picked a lot of flaws. Worse, it required the DM to be the sort of jerk that sends hordes of golems against Rogues or Huge opponents against Trip-Fighers; you spent all your time designing games to screw over your PCs. It annoyed the PCs ("man, why can't I ever get a break?") and limited the DM.

Feh on that too, say I! Feh!
Pretty much. How are you going to be claustrophobic in a D&D game? 90% or so of the game takes place underground. Vestophobia would be cool, but eventually you level past owlbears. In order to make it relevant your DM has to put you up against plushies. Unless your campaign involves taking on High School mascots, it's going to come off as contrived.

AstralFire
2008-10-13, 04:34 PM
Pretty much. How are you going to be claustrophobic in a D&D game? 90% or so of the game takes place underground. Vestophobia would be cool, but eventually you level past owlbears. In order to make it relevant your DM has to put you up against plushies. Unless your campaign involves taking on High School mascots, it's going to come off as contrived.

While I advocate just avoiding flaws entirely, careful restriction on flaws with that technique works fine, just as one doesn't allow players to be a bunch of Sith Lords in a close-to-canon SWSE Original Trilogy game.

Heliomance
2008-10-13, 06:56 PM
Pretty much. How are you going to be claustrophobic in a D&D game? 90% or so of the game takes place underground.

Depends on the play style. I'm in three campaigns at the moment, and so far I'd say about two sessions, maybe three total have been spent underground. One of them's been going about a year, the other two are probably coming up on six months or so.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-13, 07:42 PM
If a flaw system is used right, it is great way to create more plastic and well-rounded characters who have more depth and are therefre much more interestig than their flatter, flawless counterparts. Obviously, people can abuse it if they really try, but a true munchkin can abuse almost any rule, so why bother? And why limit the possibilities of the non-munchkins becuaase someone else might abuse flaws for the worse?
I normally try to build interesting, multidimensional characters with a certain character depth, and when I sit on the other side of the Gamemaster screen, I encourage my players to do so as well. This is a lot easier with game like Gurps which offers the possibilities to create the desired chraracters with great accuracy and depth of focus, and this is at least partly because of the unequaled system of disadvantages and their balance. Why should I have to suffer from shallow, boring characters when I could have interesting ones - without penalise the players for their more interesting character design?

So, why not just give your PCs a list of character traits (flaws) and say "pick at least one of these." No need to put points to these things, and by removing the mechanical advantage/disadvantage from 'em, you don't have to worry about players who picks flaws and then don't bother RPing them unless you poke 'em.

If you must use a flaw system, I'd go with the "bonus XP" system... though that can get pretty wacky too.

I remember oWoD where you recovered Willpower by triggering your Nature or Demeanor - that could result in some random side stories where the Architect helps some kids set up a lemonade stand, the Monster tortures some kittens, and the Director tells the Monster to torture the kittens. And the Loner stands on the street corner with all the other Loners saying "I don' need nobody!" :smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2008-10-13, 07:43 PM
I think the key to challenging PCs' flaws appropriately is reputation. (This works best in an ongoing campaign.) After they've had some success in an area, they'll develop reputations. Enemies will learn, in a general sense, what the PCs are good at. If they're smart enough to take the PCs into account for future plans, they'll try to learn more about the PCs. Eventually these enemies will discover some of the PCs' limitations, whether that's poor ranged combat capability or banned schools of magic. Since knowledge is power, this information will also be sold to whomever is willing to pay. The party won't know in advance if any future enemies are wise to their flaws or not, and this will force them to try to shore up these vulnerabilities.

This gives flaws a pretty good return at low levels, but then, when the characters have some more resources, makes them more obvious chinks in the armor.

turkishproverb
2008-10-13, 07:46 PM
As I've said before, Flaws are the paving stones on the road to Munchkindom.

LONG
IRL, nobody is compensated for problems they have to deal with, and indeed, in a game without Flaws few people create characters with them unless they feel it is an important part of their character. They rarely have mechanical effects, but they always have RP effects, and these RP effects help to establish one's character. The most interesting characters in fiction are not perfect beings, they have strengths and weaknesses like everyone else.

However, once you start allowing people to take Flaws for mechanical advantage, they become just another thing on your character sheet, rather than part of your character. You have an idea for your character - say, a talented sniper - and you want to make him really good at shooting. Without Flaws, you arrange your stats and skills and, having done what you can mechanically, you may begin thinking about why he is the way he is, and what he thinks. Perhaps you decide that he is a sniper because he's afraid of personal interactions, and when he was drafted for the local army he signed up for the riflery corps to get out of all the hand-to-hand combat that other grunts needed to go through. So... he's distant then? Okay, then when you talk with other PCs you'll be a man of few words and perhaps a little blunt. Not a bad start.

Now add Flaws. Well, you'd really like to boost you rifle skill so you look over the Flaw chart. Huh, he has a low CHA anyhow, so let's give him Anti-Social, it's only a -2 to Diplomacy checks anyhow. Hmm... hey, he's not going to be in close combat either, so he'll take Featherweight (-2 to melee attack & damage). That's great, now his Riflery is huge. Hmm... well, I'd like him to have a nicer rifle, so how about we give him Weak Stomach so that I can get the Merit "Army Training" which lets me start with better weapons.

As you can see, things that you added because you thought they'd be neat to RP in case #1 just become things you add to your character sheet in case #2. The temptation to just hang on more Flaws is incredible, and it cheapens any RP choices that player make.

Summary
Flaws make what would otherwise be conscious RP choices into pure min/maxing. Even the most conscientious RPer will be tempted to add some quirk to their character for the extra points, rather than as a conscious choice.

Additionally:
I don't buy the argument that they "aid customization" either. You can work things out with your DM if you really need the mechanical changes, but most of the "customization" parts of your character should come through RP or basic character creation choices (like gear or skill choice). If you have trouble thinking up quirks for characters, then may I recommend thumbing through some of the Flaw tables for games you have and just writing down the names of each Flaw? That way you can turn to it for inspiration rather than as a way to get a few more powers.

Disclaimer
I do not think people who like Flaw systems are inherently munchkins, or bad RPers. Rather my point is that Flaws cheapen legitimate RP choices by making them part of the initial min/maxing that always goes on during character creation, and that such an incentive can be harmful to RP in general.

I disagree. A mechanical Flaws system can allow a player to think of new quirky characters they would not have otherwise. I've known many people who didn't start doing heavy RP until they chose flaws mechanically and were forced to role play them when they would not have even thought of that quirk before.

valadil
2008-10-13, 09:50 PM
I like flaws in other systems, but I've never tried them in D&D. If a player asked, I'd probably allow it if it were for roleplaying purposes and they were aware I'd exploit the flaw. If they took it so they could get the feats to qualify for a PrC 3 levels early, forget it.

TheDarkOne
2008-10-13, 09:57 PM
Here's an idea for flaw systems. The player decides how many points/feats worth of flaws he wants, and builds the character with those extra points/feats. Then the DM gets to pick out the flaws for the character.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-13, 10:58 PM
Here's an idea for flaw systems. The player decides how many points/feats worth of flaws he wants, and builds the character with those extra points/feats. Then the DM gets to pick out the flaws for the character.

Yeah, then the player walks into the nearest bar an pinches the butt of the local maniac sheriff's wife and or daughter.
After some staring, he rolls a new character and you keep you nose out of his character.

Just in case it wasn't clear I think the DM should run the game not lord over character builds. In the end you want them to win just not so easily and that's better accomplished (in my opinion) with proper challenges than limiting what they can do that isn't completely broken ala Pun-Pun.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-13, 11:18 PM
I disagree. A mechanical Flaws system can allow a player to think of new quirky characters they would not have otherwise. I've known many people who didn't start doing heavy RP until they chose flaws mechanically and were forced to role play them when they would not have even thought of that quirk before.

I would respond, as I had before: why not just have the PCs pick out the quirks then, and not link them to any mechanical effects? If it is really just a "I never thought of that" situation, then a table of quirk names works just as well as a Flaw System; better, actually since now the player will think "hmm, what would be fun to play" rather than "hrm, I need 2 more points to get Extra Shooty.... what should I take?"

If, however, the Flaw System is merely designed to entice players to RP, then I'd recommend giving bonus XP or +1 chips instead - this takes a lot of the min/maxing out of the equation and makes the RP requirement a carrot, rather than a stick.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-13, 11:28 PM
Because a lot of players just play a version of themselves?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-13, 11:32 PM
Because a lot of players just play a version of themselves?

Say more...? :smallconfused:

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-14, 12:09 AM
I disagree. A mechanical Flaws system can allow a player to think of new quirky characters they would not have otherwise. I've known many people who didn't start doing heavy RP until they chose flaws mechanically and were forced to role play them when they would not have even thought of that quirk before.

This I absolutely agree with. It's a huge help for me as a GM, too, to have some sort of structure to differentiate my NPCs, and do it mechanically, too.

A big part of the point of disadvantage systems, indeed, is to give mechanical representation for this sort of thing. Sure, you can say you're agoraphobic and have no way to represent it, but then you open the door to all sorts of arguments at the table. Having rules laid out for how it works - as a guideline, at least - can be a big help.

The system still needs to pay out during play, not before it, though. Edit: Or both, I guess.

turkishproverb
2008-10-14, 12:13 AM
I would respond, as I had before: why not just have the PCs pick out the quirks then, and not link them to any mechanical effects? If it is really just a "I never thought of that" situation, then a table of quirk names works just as well as a Flaw System; better, actually since now the player will think "hmm, what would be fun to play" rather than "hrm, I need 2 more points to get Extra Shooty.... what should I take?"

If, however, the Flaw System is merely designed to entice players to RP, then I'd recommend giving bonus XP or +1 chips instead - this takes a lot of the min/maxing out of the equation and makes the RP requirement a carrot, rather than a stick.

Hardly. Players get more ideas when looking through options they didn't know existed, and mechanical effects can help many players to role play them. If your character has High INT, is he roleplaying it JUST to get the mechanical benefit? even if he is, how does that effect whether or not he's actually role playing it.

Lets see the powergamer play someone with those flaws without having mechanical methods of taking them. They AREN'T GOING TO.

Flaw systems BUILD roleplayer OUT OF powergamers.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-14, 12:20 AM
Say more...? :smallconfused:

Perfect example, my brother's a jerk (Played Horde on WOW), All of his characters are jerks and in what I believe was his last pnp game he plotted to kill all his teammates when they were down. Technically it was 'in character' but it was classic him all the way, give him a reason and the chance and it TPK -1. Sometime he's a Drow, sometime a halfdragon but it's always the same character, him.

Temp.
2008-10-14, 12:45 AM
Lets see the powergamer play someone with those flaws without having mechanical methods of taking them. They AREN'T GOING TO.

Flaw systems BUILD roleplayer OUT OF powergamers.I don't buy it.

The D&D system makes players choose some abilities over others. By grabbing the Wizard class, a player grabs mechanical support and rewards for the Feeble, Frail, Inattentive, Meager Fortitude, Murky-Eyed, Non-Combatant, Poor Reflexes, Shaky and Vulnerable flaws. By presenting those as character options--unsupported by further benefits and penalties--players become equally aware of the choices and inclined to use the choices as they would otherwise become. There is no reason to add another abuseable mechanism to the game.

I don't believe that using the flaws makes poor roleplayers do a better job of getting in character than having them simply describe character traits ahead of time would. In both cases the player is being pressured to act in-character by decisions made and supported in the PC's background, but in the case of the Flaw-users the players are pressured to choose their characters' personality traits based on mechanical advantage. Wizards in a Flaw-using group will more likely to define their characters by poor eyesight than in a group that sees "Murky Eyes" as just one of many options. And same few character traits will repeat--most melee combatants will have the shakes, most spellcasters will be "feeble." In groups without mechanical support for a few select flaws (some obviously superior to others), you will probably see more diverse traits being adopted and shown in the game.




Perfect example, my brother's a jerk (Played Horde on WOW), All of his characters are jerks and in what I believe was his last pnp game he plotted to kill all his teammates when they were down. Technically it was 'in character' but it was classic him all the way, give him a reason and the chance and it TPK -1. Sometime he's a Drow, sometime a halfdragon but it's always the same character, him.I don't see how this is going to change with flaws. I imagine all his "flawed" characters will be him, just with slight physical weaknesses.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-14, 01:01 AM
Assuming it's a physical flaw it'll at least stop his constant showboating. Or maybe get him to riff off that flaw.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-14, 01:27 AM
I don't buy it.

The D&D system makes players choose some abilities over others. By grabbing the Wizard class, a player grabs mechanical support and rewards for the Feeble, Frail, Inattentive, Meager Fortitude, Murky-Eyed, Non-Combatant, Poor Reflexes, Shaky and Vulnerable flaws. By presenting those as character options--unsupported by further benefits and penalties--players become equally aware of the choices and inclined to use the choices as they would otherwise become. There is no reason to add another abuseable mechanism to the game.

D&D's system is so half-hearted and tacked-on that it's not a very good example at all, though.

Satyr
2008-10-14, 03:17 AM
So, why not just give your PCs a list of character traits (flaws) and say "pick at least one of these." No need to put points to these things, and by removing the mechanical advantage/disadvantage from 'em, you don't have to worry about players who picks flaws and then don't bother RPing them unless you poke 'em.

There are several reasons. The most important one: Traits without mechanical significance are less significant. Why should I introduce traits without the significance they could have? I want to have a character to be flawed, imperfect and having problems. The flaws are what makes characters interesting.
And why should I intervene much in the character creation of other people? I offer my opinion, and in some cases a veto when the character or some of his traits doesn't fit into the campaign, but usually I think that players that create their characters are best when they are on their own.
A disadvantage system offers here a great way to introduce more character options, which are also useable. More positive traits are only improving the bandwidth of choices, but does not necessarily offer more means to individualise a character.
And: Not all drawbacks are equally important. A quantitative system of values or these drawbacks is also necessary to balance them to each other.


If you must use a flaw system, I'd go with the "bonus XP" system... though that can get pretty wacky too.

I don’t ‘must’ use a flaw system, I like using a flaw system and think that the game is somewhat lacking without well-made drawbacks for characters. XP giving drawbacks are a worse alternative from my experience, because it mostly becomes less important or even undesirable to overcome the weaknesses, because you lose a source of character improvement. In a better working disadvantage system like in Gurps, you can tell stories of people who masters their fear, loses their ideals, or overcome their speech impediment. Additionally, I like to treat XP as a reward for learning and improving, not for playing a character in a believable and interesting way – that id pretty much obligatory, and shouldn’t require an additional reward.
I don't like to reward the elements which are prerequisites for a more sophisticated game - i would only use penalties when these obligations are lacking.

Not to mention how helpful an advantage & disadvantage system can be to simulate more complex social structures and traits like titles, nobility, renown and a bad reputation.

The D&D flaw system is quite bad, but at least it is better than nothing. We have developed a slightly different flaw system, which is better suited to my group's playing style - the single flaws are not as aggravating and sometimes crippling, but most characters have at least two or three.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 04:39 AM
Flaw systems BUILD roleplayer OUT OF powergamers.

Hardly. Flaw systems turn people away from roleplaying, because they teach people that you should never take some negative aspect for your character unless you get a mechanical benefit out of it.

One who plays a claustrophobic character for the sake of it, is roleplaying. One who takes the claustrophobia flaw because that gives him more points to put into his swordfighting skills, is min-maxing. Non-mechanical flaws, and XP awards for playing them, encourage the former. Point-based flaws encourage the latter.

Satyr
2008-10-14, 04:50 AM
One who plays a claustrophobic character for the sake of it, is roleplaying. One who takes the claustrophobia flaw because that gives him more points to put into his swordfighting skills, is min-maxing. Non-mechanical flaws, and XP awards for playing them, encourage the former. Point-based flaws encourage the latter.

And without a certain reward for taking flaws, no one takes them. What is wrong with rewarding people for taking flaws? And why is there any difference between a min-maxing / optimizing a character and roleplaying it? Isn't that one of the more proverbial fallacies?

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 05:01 AM
And without a certain reward for taking flaws, no one takes them.
That is so utterly mistaken the word "wrong" doesn't even begin to describe it.


And why is there any difference between a min-maxing / optimizing a character and roleplaying it?
I'm not saying that "min-maxers don't roleplay". I'm saying that certain systems, including but not limited to point-based flaw systems, encourage min-maxing over roleplaying.

If you look over the forums for flaws, you'll see far more mention of people taking e.g. "I can't fight in melee" type flaws for a wizard or any character who was never intended to fight in melee in the first place, or anything similar to that, than people who take a flaw because it aids their roleplaying. Yes, I'm sure that is because flaws are such a good roleplaying aid.

Muspelheim
2008-10-14, 05:24 AM
I've never really understood why people use flaws. If both the DM and the players want extra feats, just houserule that you get two more feats to start with. I don't think flaws really do anything for roleplaying the way it is set up in UA anyhow.

turkishproverb
2008-10-14, 05:38 AM
One who plays a claustrophobic character for the sake of it, is roleplaying. One who takes the claustrophobia flaw because that gives him more points to put into his swordfighting skills, is min-maxing. Non-mechanical flaws, and XP awards for playing them, encourage the former. Point-based flaws encourage the latter.

Fallacy. Roleplaying is Roleplaying. If you are acting claustrophobic, your going be be Roleplaying a claustrophobic, regardless of how it got into the character concept. To claim otherwise is a misuse of the term at best.

Is it powergaming and not RP to run a high INT character as well read and thoughtful?



Hardly. Flaw systems turn people away from roleplaying, because they teach people that you should never take some negative aspect for your character unless you get a mechanical benefit out of it.

One who plays a claustrophobic character for the sake of it, is roleplaying. One who takes the claustrophobia flaw because that gives him more points to put into his swordfighting skills, is min-maxing. Non-mechanical flaws, and XP awards for playing them, encourage the former. Point-based flaws encourage the latter.


Characters don't gain quirks whole cloth out of nowhere, and Role playing has to do with being the character, understanding them and acting like them. This idea that how the character got the way they did because of building rules making them less of a character is, to say the least, odd.

You see, powergamers, even if they simply take flaws to gain power, learn to role play better. If you have a competent DM, they force them to role play the flaws they take, making the people RP something they wouldn't without the flaw.

Boom. Better RPer.


From there, the player learns to play out that quirk and might occasionally include it where he wouldn't otherwise, or try a new one.

Frankly, the issue of flaws should have little to do with some mythical "roleplaying without benefits is better" idea that fails to exist when using XP bonuses anyway.

To say nothing of this strange "XP Bonuses are DIFFERENT from point bonuses" idea.

Satyr
2008-10-14, 05:59 AM
And without a certain reward for taking flaws, no one takes them.

That is so utterly mistaken the word "wrong" doesn't even begin to describe it.


So? If a player choses to play a more well rounded character and another one plays a one dimensional flawless (and most likely therfeore completely dull) character, the player whose character has flaws will face more hindrances and problems, while the flawless characters has to face less obstacles and will have an overall much easier life.
The character with the more interesting character is penalized for creating a more dimensional alter ego, and the player with the boring character is actually prefered. How can this be good for role-playing when you teach your players that they are more likely to 'win' when they create dull characters? How?


I'm not saying that "min-maxers don't roleplay". I'm saying that certain systems, including but not limited to point-based flaw systems, encourage min-maxing over roleplaying.

There is no interconncetion whatsoeverbetween optimizing a character and roleplaying it. None. I play in a fairly 'realistc' gritty murder mystery campaign where the characters play old Pagan gods and the characters are awfully powerful, and the characters are even moe optimised (as it fits them because they are GODS), and still it is very heavy on roleplaying and the game is almost completely character-driven.
And I can't think of any game that encourage sheer powergaming as much as D&D, which doesn't have an intricate system of advantages and disadvantages. If a player wants to play flat, dull and optimised characters, they can do it in any system, but the more options for diverse and multi-dimensional characters exist in a system, the more likely it will become that more characters will use that options and are multidimensional and less flat.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 06:13 AM
So? If a player choses to play a more well rounded character and another one plays a one dimensional flawless (and most likely therfeore completely dull) character, the player whose character has flaws will face more hindrances and problems,
You're missing the point entirely. You said that "without a certain reward for taking flaws, no one takes them", which is completely false. There are plenty of players, in any system, that take dependents, restrictive honor codes, phobias, enemies, and other flaws all without expecting a mechanical benefit for them.

Don't speak in absolutes; a single counterexample will prove you wrong. Not everybody plays the game the way you play it.


And I can't think of any game that encourage sheer powergaming as much as D&D, which doesn't have an intricate system of advantages and disadvantages.
Funny you should say that, because D&D itself doesn't have an intricate system of advantages and disadvantages.

(2.0 doesn't, nor does 4.0; 3.5 core doesn't either, but an optional splatbook has a bunch of flaws which hardly count as an "intricate system" and, as this thread points out, are just plain badly designed).


If a player wants to play flat, dull and optimised characters, they can do it in any system,
And that's also false. Among others, you can't do that in Amber DRP, in Over the Edge, or in Paranoia. In many rules-light systems, you can't play an optimized character because there's nothing to optimize.



There is no interconncetion whatsoeverbetween optimizing a character and roleplaying it.

it in any system, but the more options for diverse and multi-dimensional characters exist in a system, the more likely it will become that more characters will use that options and are multidimensional and less flat.
This is a contradiction. More mechanical options do not cause better roleplaying. If anything, that's Stormwind right back at ya.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 06:20 AM
Fallacy. Roleplaying is Roleplaying. If you are acting claustrophobic, your going be be Roleplaying a claustrophobic, regardless of how it got into the character concept.
That's precisely what I'm saing. If you're going to be roleplaying a claustrophobic, you can do that even without a "flaw (5 pts) claustrophobia" with associated dice roll mechanic.


You see, powergamers, even if they simply take flaws to gain power, learn to role play better.
Not if they take flaws that don't come up in play, or flaws that makes them worse at doing things they weren't going to do anyway, or flaws that don't encourage roleplaying (because many of them just plain don't; writing on your character sheet that you only have one eye and take a -2 to perception checks, does not encourage roleplaying, but it is a flaw).


If you have a competent DM, they force them to role play the flaws they take, making the people RP something they wouldn't without the flaw.
So what you're actually saying is that a competent DM can make people better roleplayers. That's true. It's also the classic non sequitur that with a (good/bad) enough DM, every RPG system will be (good/bad). We're getting close to Oberoni here, actually - "it's not a bad system because a good DM can do good things with it" is pretty similar to "it's not broken because I can houserule around it".



To say nothing of this strange "XP Bonuses are DIFFERENT from point bonuses" idea.
Of course they're different. The difference being that you only get the XP bonus if it comes up in play - in other words, if you're roleplaying your flaw. Guess what? Encouraging people to roleplay tends to make them better roleplayers.

turkishproverb
2008-10-14, 06:29 AM
COuld you please not ignore half of what I post next time? Also, how is playing flaws for mechanical benefit any different than playing flaws for mechanical benefit? Because one comes later?


That's precisely what I'm saing. If you're going to be roleplaying a claustrophobic, you can do that even without a "flaw (5 pts) claustrophobia" with associated dice roll mechanic.

And why would a powergamer do that? They wouldn't without the benefit, so this gives them a reason to try something new.

Boom. Better RPing, or at least more varied RPING.



Not if they take flaws that don't come up in play, or flaws that makes them worse at doing things they weren't going to do anyway, or flaws that don't encourage roleplaying (because many of them just plain don't; writing on your character sheet that you only have one eye and take a -2 to perception checks, does not encourage roleplaying, but it is a flaw).

"how'd you lose the eye?" asks the local pawbroker, knowing that spying is often punished with putting one out in that region...

And once again, I never said every flaw was valid, only that your idea they shouldn't incur mechanical benefits/flaws was a bit one dimensional




So what you're actually saying is that a competent DM can make people better roleplayers. That's true. It's also the classic non sequitur that with a (good/bad) enough DM, every RPG system will be (good/bad). We're getting close to Oberoni here, actually - "it's not a bad system because a good DM can do good things with it" is pretty similar to "it's not broken because I can houserule around it".

hardly. A competent DM making someone RP something on their sheet (a text rule in a system with flaws 99.9999% of the time) is not analogous to house ruling. I'm not sure how someone can honestly think that.


Of course they're different. The difference being that you only get the XP bonus if it comes up in play - in other words, if you're roleplaying your flaw. Guess what? Encouraging people to roleplay tends to make them better roleplayers.

1 way you get a flaw you have to play in game to get something, the other way, you get a flaw you have to play in a game to get something.

Only diff is one way the bonus comes later.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-10-14, 07:19 AM
One who plays a claustrophobic character for the sake of it, is roleplaying. One who takes the claustrophobia flaw because that gives him more points to put into his swordfighting skills, is min-maxing. Non-mechanical flaws, and XP awards for playing them, encourage the former. Point-based flaws encourage the latter.

This does not follow. Nothing prevents person who has a rule to back up a character aspect from roleplaying. And you are, deliberately or ignorantly, misusing the term "min-max." It's "minimize weaknesses, maximize strenghts".

If you create a hacker and make him a quadriplegic living in a private hospital, you're min-maxing - minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths, by picking a disadvantage that inconveniences you very little or not at all. Similarly, if you create a magic-user who is abysmal in close combat, you're minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 07:47 AM
Also, how is playing flaws for mechanical benefit any different than playing flaws for mechanical benefit? Because one comes later?
Because if the mechanical benefit only comes if you roleplay it, that encourages roleplaying. Well duh.


And why would a powergamer do that? They wouldn't without the benefit, so this gives them a reason to try something new.
That is only true if you believe that powergamers are incapable of roleplaying otherwise - which puts you firmly back into Stormwind territory.



"how'd you lose the eye?" asks the local pawbroker, knowing that spying is often punished with putting one out in that region...
Precisely. A good DM encourages people to roleplay. Note that whether the lost eye has a mechanical benefit is, at this point, irrelevant.



hardly. A competent DM making someone RP something on their sheet (a text rule in a system with flaws 99.9999% of the time) is not analogous to house ruling. I'm not sure how someone can honestly think that.
Nice straw man you got there.



1 way you get a flaw you have to play in game to get something, the other way, you get a flaw you have to play in a game to get something.
False. In one way, you get a flaw that you don't have to play in the game to get something. Just because you don't see the difference doesn't mean it's not there. Remember that not everybody shares your playstyle.

(A) you get a bonus if you write down a flaw, even if you completely ignore it later or it was such an obscure flaw that it never comes up.
(B) you get a bonus if you roleplay a flaw.
(C) who needs bonuses, roleplaying is its own reward (hence the name, "roleplaying game").

There is an obvious sliding scale here, where C is more strongly focused on roleplaying. Of course, good DMs will not let you get away with A - but like I said, good DMs can certainly encourage roleplaying. You're essentially asserting that (A) doesn't exist, because good DMs will make you roleplay it, thus putting it under (B). But guess what? Not every DM is a good DM.



Stuff
Yeah, I'm sure that calling people ignorant means that you're by definition correct. Welcome to my ignore list.

Riffington
2008-10-14, 07:55 AM
In any proper flaw system, the GM reserves the right to change the values any flaw gives. A powerful psychic who is wheelchair-bound may be an interesting character to play (or found a school for mutants, whatever)... and he should get some points because the wheelchair is a disadvantage. But if he also wants to take a low strength, the GM needs to give a lot fewer points since that's not much of an incremental disadvantage.

D&D's flaw system is poorly-constructed, because it's hard to take this into account.

/Additionally you should get experience points for roleplaying both your flaws and your merits.

Satyr
2008-10-14, 09:57 AM
You're missing the point entirely. You said that "without a certain reward for taking flaws, no one takes them", which is completely false. There are plenty of players, in any system, that take dependents, restrictive honor codes, phobias, enemies, and other flaws all without expecting a mechanical benefit for them.

I have rarely seen this and I have a hard time to believe that that many players voluntarily lay obstacles in the way of their characters. To the contrary, according to my experiences, without a counter of disadvantages these are rarely more than cosmetic pseudo hindrances or quirky character traits. Without an implementation in the rules, they lack the significance to influence the game.
Take for example the numerous discussions about the paladin’s code in this forum and how a paladin is often seen s a liability to the group. This is an example of a disadvantage without a proper counter value and one of the reasons why the paladin is or was so unpopular in 3.5.



think of any game that encourage sheer powergaming as much as D&D, which doesn't have an intricate system of advantages and disadvantages.
Funny you should say that, because D&D itself doesn't have an intricate system of advantages and disadvantages.

I am no native speaker, so it’s quite possible that I have phrased the sentence confusingly. I am sorry for that. What I meant was:
1. I can’t think of any other roleplaying game that is as strongly focused on conflict, powergaming and character optimisation as D&D.
2. D&D has no real system for disadvantages.
3. The claim that the introduction of flaws with a counter value or point buy systems encourages character optimisation is quite questionable when the game with the most emphasis on this optimisation has none of these rules.


And that's also false. Among others, you can't do that in Amber DRP, in Over the Edge, or in Paranoia. In many rules-light systems, you can't play an optimized character because there's nothing to optimize.

Yeah, that is plausible. Because there are no limits, there are no chances that a character declares himself as nigh invincible and unbeatable in confrontation, who will almost never die and is the best in everything that ever was invented.
And, on the other hand, the lack of optimisation potential is foremost a limiting lack of potential. You effectively sacrifices the potential to improve your character or to make significant choices. For many players - including me - creating a powerful character, overcomming its hindraces and be able to feel powerful has a certain appeal in a roleplaying game. Without this, one of the basic requirements i have into a game would be lacking. Why should I or anyone abstain of something appealing just because someone else could perhaps abuse it?


More mechanical options do not cause better roleplaying.

I didn’t claim that. I spoke of character options in general, and that is not limited to be mechanical options. But I am quite convinced that it is much easier to create well rounded characters with less limits and more choices than without. That is actually quite obvious, I think.

Saph
2008-10-14, 10:11 AM
I have rarely seen this and I have a hard time to believe that that many players voluntarily lay obstacles in the way of their characters. To the contrary, according to my experiences, without a counter of disadvantages these are rarely more than cosmetic pseudo hindrances or quirky character traits. Without an implementation in the rules, they lack the significance to influence the game.

Actually, I find the exact opposite.

For instance, my first GURPS character had the Shy and Poor disadvantages. Neither had any significant effect on her throughout the campaign, for the obvious-in-retrospect reason that when you're dealing with homicidal monsters and insane fellow party members, being shy and poor is really really low on your list of worries.

On the other hand, I've frequently played D&D 3.5 characters who had a moral code that they were completely dedicated to, to the point where they were willing to face probable death rather than break it (and they did). I never got any mechanical bonuses for doing it, and I didn't expect them - the satisfaction I got from acting out a heroic story was way more fun than any mechanical benefit could possibly be. :) I put several of them up on the forum a year or so ago, so I'll post the links if you're curious.

Playing out a flaw that's an integral part of your character really is its own reward. Trying to 'pay' players to do it has a low success rate, IMO.

- Saph

AstralFire
2008-10-14, 10:25 AM
Rewarding players for flaws risks incurring the fundamental attribution error1 on those that previously liked it already, but may succeed in introducing those who had never seriously considered it before. As with anything else, you can't make a blanket statement about it.

1 Wikipedia only goes briefly into the FAE's reversed effect on self. So to be more specific about its application in this case - it can cause people who had previously enjoyed playing flawed characters to lose enjoyment of flaws for their own sake, attributing their choice of flaws to the external reward.

Satyr
2008-10-14, 10:27 AM
For instance, my first GURPS character had the Shy and Poor disadvantages. Neither had any significant effect on her throughout the campaign, for the obvious-in-retrospect reason that when you're dealing with homicidal monsters and insane fellow party members, being shy and poor is really really low on your list of worries.

The significance of the drawbacks are always dependent on the campaign's scope - that is not necessarily a question if drawbacks are a attractive form character option or not, but if the chosen trait fits into the campaign.
One could argue that it is the task of the gamemaster to make sure that all traits - good ones as much as bad ones are significant. If I were in your place and I had the impression that some traits of my characters were not regarded enough, I would be annoyed as well, but I see little difference between the neglected disadvantages and positive character traits which rarely come into use in the game (I remember a D&D game with a rogue who was more or less specialised into burglary - he was good in climbing and stealth, but his focus was clearly on opening doors, finding hidden switches and disarming traps. I think we were around level 7 when for the first time in the game a trap appeared).

I am not claiming that a game without drawbacks is automatically inferior, but I think it has a certain appeal and certain plots are much easier to tell . I generally prefer more gritty and chalenging campaigns where people have to master their own demons (or are engulfed by them) and are far from perfect and those are much easier to realise in a game with an emphasis on weaknesses as well as strengths. Or at least a catalogue so that undecided or mildly uncreative players can search for traits they want for their characters.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-14, 10:29 AM
XP giving drawbacks are a worse alternative from my experience, because it mostly becomes less important or even undesirable to overcome the weaknesses, because you lose a source of character improvement. In a better working disadvantage system like in Gurps, you can tell stories of people who masters their fear, loses their ideals, or overcome their speech impediment. Additionally, I like to treat XP as a reward for learning and improving, not for playing a character in a believable and interesting way – that id pretty much obligatory, and shouldn’t require an additional reward.

This is an interesting point.

I agree that it is good for characters to be able to overcome their disadvantages, but why should you make that mechanical? Is it really necessary to say "you may buy off that flaw for 5 character points" and is that desirable? Wouldn't it be better to, after a character has been forced to face his fear, for the DM (or the player) to declare that said character is over their flaw? In a world where flaws give no mechanical bonus or penalty it is easy to actually tie this sort of improvement to RP. But if the flaws are mechanically linked, then it seems "unfair" for them to be conquered without the expenditure of some sort of resource. What do you think?

As for "XP bonuses are bad":
Primarily, XP bonuses are used as carrots to encourage good RP. You can use alternative means if you'd like (such as +1 chips that can be spent to add +1 to a given roll) if you prefer. The point is that players are encouraged to RP the traits they've selected for their characters - which, I believe, was one of your reasons for using a Flaw system.

If you worry about the disincentive for players to try and overcome their flaws, well you just have to reward them for overcoming them. Give them a large XP bonus for overcoming their flaw, or perhaps a bonus feat or something else that is permanent. This way you actually reward the good RP necessary to overcome a flaw, rather than allowing point bonuses alone drive character traits.

As for "Mechanical Traits are the Important Traits":
We'll just have to disagree on that. I've always found that it is the intangible stuff which people remember most about a character, which is most important to me. Nobody remembers that Joe the Barbarian had the Shaky Flaw, but they do remember that he had the habit of collecting a tooth from every foe he slew and kept them in a bag around his neck for good luck.

If your argument is that the players don't care about traits that have no mechanical effect, then I would argue this is a problem with your players, rather than a reason to use a flaw system. After all, what are you trying to force your players to do by using one? If it is merely to diversify build options, then I suppose that's fine though I, for one, detest the idea of making your character's personality something that you min/max.

But, if you use a flaw system because you'd want your players to play more "interesting" characters, then I think you'll do better if you reward the actual roleplaying rather than setting up conditions which may require it. A "XP Bonus" system means that the players get no mechanical benefit from their flaw unless they actually RP it - and you, as the DM do not have to yell at them for not RPing their flaws, as you would have to for a standard Flaw System. The difference is between rewarding "good" behavior and punishing "bad" behavior; people generally respond better to the carrot rather than the stick.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 10:37 AM
I have rarely seen this and I have a hard time to believe that that many players voluntarily lay obstacles in the way of their characters.
On the contrary, it happens all the time. For instance, it is quite common for players to play a dwarf that hates elves. Or an elf that hates dwarves. Or a barbarian that hates wizards.

This is a flaw. Indeed, GURPS quantifies it (intolerance, 5 points). It is also an obstacle, say, whenever you have to ask help from the local elf village. In D&D, you get no mechanical bonus for taking this flaw, and yet people do it all the time.

Note that the paladin code is a poor example; it is seen as a liability because it limits your teammates; you may lose your status if your party members misbehave (although this is a prime example of bad DM'ing).



3. The claim that the introduction of flaws with a counter value or point buy systems encourages character optimisation is quite questionable when the game with the most emphasis on this optimisation has none of these rules.
Sorry, but that really doesn't follow. The statement that "point-buy flaws encourage optimizing" is not contradicted by the existence of a system that has optimizing but no point-buy flaws.

Note that optimization is visibly present in systems like Shadowrun, GURPS, Hackmaster, White Wolf, and Champions - most of which do have flaws.

Furthermore, whenever D&D optimization comes up, a frequent suggestion is that "if you can convince your DM to allow flaws, you can optimize your character further".



Yeah, that is plausible. Because there are no limits, there are no chances that a character declares himself as nigh invincible and unbeatable in confrontation, who will almost never die and is the best in everything that ever was invented.
I take it you've never played Paranoia, then? :smallbiggrin:


And, on the other hand, the lack of optimisation potential is foremost a limiting lack of potential.
This is not actually true.

In a system that has no rules for disarming an opponent, you can try it and your DM will probably make something up (granted, this takes a bit of DMing skill). But you always have the possibility.

In a system that has explicit rules for disarming, you are disallowed from doing to unless you have the prerequisites. For instance, in 4E D&D, you can only disarm an enemy if you have the (one) power that allows it. Thus, you do not have the possibility.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-10-14, 10:53 AM
It also means you have to bump up all the monsters. Basically, it's a significant amount of work for no appreciable difference (everyone's a bit stronger, and every monster/character has a slightly longer statblock).

Uh, the mechanical effect for what were previously just roleplaying choices is a difference. Refer to my earlier example of the doddering old Martial Arts sensei who's nearly blind and deaf, but can still punch out an armored warrior with his pinky finger. Or the Cleric who always complains that he's the "last one to notice anything" (the character has Unreactive, -6 Init). It's not like your game would be incomplete without flaws, but I've found they're quite a bit of fun.

As for monsters, well... I restat important NPCs using the various Unearthed Arcana options I like to use, but for everything else I just knock up the level of an encounter by 1 by advancing the monster or adding another.


I've also got a prejudice against flaws because I've noticed that there tends to be a direct correlation between how many flaws a forum-posted build has and how cheesy it is. I honestly don't think I've seen a single character build where flaws weren't used for the sole reason of making it as powerful as possible.

Nobody in my group is familiar enough with the rules to actually comb through every book for the absolute best spells, or the feat combo that gives an automatic "win." We don't take the game nearly seriously enough to put that kind of time/effort into it.


This doesn't mean that it's impossible to use flaws for RP reasons, but it does mean that when you hear the word 'Flaws' your cheese-dar should start pinging.

I suggested them to my group, actually, since I thought it would make their characters more uniquely theirs. I'm sure that with some players you have to be careful, but I've always been really lucky to have players who aren't out to build a Combat God and "win the game." I think if I actually had to put up with that, I'd just stop playing. It's completely besides the point of what my friends and I play D&D for.

horseboy
2008-10-14, 11:02 AM
Depends on the play style. I'm in three campaigns at the moment, and so far I'd say about two sessions, maybe three total have been spent underground. One of them's been going about a year, the other two are probably coming up on six months or so.Of course, if that were a common play style, mounted paladins would be considered more viable.

AstralFire
2008-10-14, 11:55 AM
Of course, if that were a common play style, mounted paladins would be considered more viable.

I've never run a campaign that has ever gone underground.

Mounted Paladins have issues for a variety of reasons.

Satyr
2008-10-14, 12:23 PM
I agree that it is good for characters to be able to overcome their disadvantages, but why should you make that mechanical? Is it really necessary to say "you may buy off that flaw for 5 character points" and is that desirable? Wouldn't it be better to, after a character has been forced to face his fear, for the DM (or the player) to declare that said character is over their flaw? In a world where flaws give no mechanical bonus or penalty it is easy to actually tie this sort of improvement to RP. But if the flaws are mechanically linked, then it seems "unfair" for them to be conquered without the expenditure of some sort of resource. What do you think?

Most mechanical terms and units in roleplaying games play mostly an auxiliary role. They are not really necessary for the game, but they are great help to avoid arbitrariness and create a feeling of obligation. You don't need a rule of overcoming disadvantages by paying points for it, you don't need it either for determin the character's abilities, for example. But it is helpful as a guideline and the orientation of all involved players. Rules offer a skeletton for the rest of the game.
The other point is the balance between players (which is completely subjective and therefore always a bit tricky to handle), but I think it is not entirely fair to prefer one player over another because he is the more talented actor - or because I had the impression that he is more talented at least.

I think that the ideal case would be when the rules are used in the backgroud and the roleplaying events lead to the result. A player who just pays of his weaknesses without a counterpart of this in the game's events is just boring, while a character flaw without a rule counterpart just lacks significance over all.


XP bonuses are used as carrots to encourage good RP. You can use alternative means if you'd like (such as +1 chips that can be spent to add +1 to a given roll) if you prefer. The point is that players are encouraged to RP the traits they've selected for their characters - which, I believe, was one of your reasons for using a Flaw system.

As mentioned above I try to avoid to reward 'good roleplay' because I think that this require to define or evaluate the roleplaying of other people. Therefore I try to base all experience rewards on ingame causes - if the character spends six months in the fencing hall of a sword master he gains XP to improve his fighting skill, if he spends some times on a farm he gains experience in the area of husbandry and field work. When certain skills or trits were especially important in an adventure, these are the ones which will increase afterwards.


I've always found that it is the intangible stuff which people remember most about a character, which is most important to me. Nobody remembers that Joe the Barbarian had the Shaky Flaw, but they do remember that he had the habit of collecting a tooth from every foe he slew and kept them in a bag around his neck for good luck.

This is partly a reason why I think that the D&D flaws are adly designed, because they have so little... significance in the long run. Shaky is an excellent example - ranged combat is not that common, and for many characters just not relevant enough. One could argue that a weakness that never or almost never is significant is not really a weakness etc.
I agree, that the best character traits are those that are rememberable and characterise the individual character, but I disagree that these are automatically the intagible traits but those that shaped the character the most - both the positive and the negative traits.


On the contrary, it happens all the time. For instance, it is quite common for players to play a dwarf that hates elves. Or an elf that hates dwarves. Or a barbarian that hates wizards.
This is a flaw.

See the part with the cosmetic pseudo hindrances. I agree that a bit of prejudices and similar characters are likely to make a character more interesting, but I still think that traits like this are more common in a Gurps game - and the more challenging difficulties will rarely appear without an appropriate exchange value. In the mentioned detective stories with pagan gods, one of the characters has a clubfoot and is as ugly as an industrial ruin in the moonlight. Don't tell me you see many characters with physical impediment.


I take it you've never played Paranoia, then?:smallbiggrin:

Actually I did. I think this game was meant for masochists. Masochists with juvenile humor.

JaxGaret
2008-10-14, 01:03 PM
Hardly. Flaw systems turn people away from roleplaying, because they teach people that you should never take some negative aspect for your character unless you get a mechanical benefit out of it.

One who plays a claustrophobic character for the sake of it, is roleplaying. One who takes the claustrophobia flaw because that gives him more points to put into his swordfighting skills, is min-maxing.

I complete disagree. Giving yourself mechanics that manifest themselves negatively (such as being claustrophobic, which is never a positive thing) doesn't mean that you're now a good roleplayer, just as playing a character who is courageous and smart (two positive attributes) doesn't mean you're a bad roleplayer.

Yes, giving your character claustophobia is a mechanic, not roleplaying.

Therefore, these negative mechanics should have something to balance them out, which is where disadvantage/flaw systems come in. Can they lead to min-maxing? Yes. Do they always necessarily lead to min-maxing? Of course not, and it's silly to claim otherwise.

You can't stop a munchkin min-maxer from being a bad player, but you can arbitrarily limit those players who aren't munchkin min-maxers in a crusade to stop the evil min-maxers.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 01:09 PM
Actually I did. I think this game was meant for masochists. Masochists with juvenile humor.
I'm not surprised.


You can't stop a munchkin min-maxer from being a bad player, but you can arbitrarily limit those players who aren't munchkin min-maxers in a crusade to stop the evil min-maxers.
Considering nobody in this thread is advocating "arbitrarily limiting" anyone, nor "crusades" against "evil min-maxers", I think you're missing the point here.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 01:11 PM
What about people who try to min-max, but aren't very good at it? Who build character incredibly carefully, then pick a poor prestige class?

JaxGaret
2008-10-14, 01:15 PM
Considering nobody in this thread is advocating "arbitrarily limiting" anyone, nor "crusades" against "evil min-maxers", I think you're missing the point here.

Did you not just state that making your character mechanically worse encourages roleplaying?

That leads to a blanket statement generalization and therefore is crusade-ish enough to me.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 01:26 PM
Did you not just state that making your character mechanically worse encourages roleplaying?

No.

Besides, might I suggest that characterizing dissenting opinions as "crusades" is not conductive to discussion? I have no idea why you and Tsotha seem intent on turning a discussion on game mechanics into a flame war.

(edit) never mind, I'm not gonna play that game with you. /ignore

JaxGaret
2008-10-14, 01:31 PM
No.

Actually, yes, so could you explain why you don't think so?


Besides, might I suggest that characterizing dissenting opinions as "crusades" is not conductive to discussion?

You are correct. Might I suggest that making statements that logically lead to "making your character mechanically worse encourages roleplaying" like yours were is not conducive to meaningful discussion either?


I have no idea why you and Tsotha seem intent on turning a discussion on game mechanics into a flame war.

I have no idea why you, KG, made inflammatory comments in the first place.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 01:44 PM
What about people who try to min-max, but aren't very good at it? Who build character incredibly carefully, then pick a poor prestige class?

Depends, really. Are they having less fun than, or being overpowered by, other people in the same group? If no, there doesn't seem to be a problem. If yes, I'd suggest the retraining rules.

JaxGaret
2008-10-14, 02:14 PM
Okay, since I'm really not trying to flame anyone, Kurald, I'll break down what you said and why I read it the way I do. Feel free to disabuse me of my notions:


Flaw systems turn people away from roleplaying

Flaw systems do not, and cannot, inherently turn people away from roleplaying. Roleplaying is a personal choice; either you do it, or you don't. The system can't tell you to roleplay, and the system can't tell you not to roleplay.


, because they teach people that you should never take some negative aspect for your character unless you get a mechanical benefit out of it.

I don't see anything wrong with having balance. Playing a weaker character or a stronger character does not make you a better or worse roleplayer, but having game balance is a good thing, IMO.


One who plays a claustrophobic character for the sake of it, is roleplaying.


One who takes the claustrophobia flaw because that gives him more points to put into his swordfighting skills, is min-maxing.

First of all, it seems like the implication here is that min-maxers and roleplayers are mutually exclusive groups. Let me know if that wasn't the intent.

Leading from that, if you think that having mechanical disadvantages (such as playing a claustrophobic character) should be offset by mechanical advantages, you must be a min-maxer (the wrong way to play), and not a roleplayer (the right way to play).

Again, let me know if I'm way off base here. If so, I apologize and retract what I said.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 02:18 PM
What about someone who takes the flaws first, and is relatively disinterested in the feats the flaw allows them to take?

A person who says, first and foremost: I wanna play a guy with X" where X is flaw, and DM looks up UA and says. OK, but these are disadvantages. You can take an extra feat to compensate.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-14, 02:40 PM
What about someone who takes the flaws first, and is relatively disinterested in the feats the flaw allows them to take?

A person who says, first and foremost: I wanna play a guy with X" where X is flaw, and DM looks up UA and says. OK, but these are disadvantages. You can take an extra feat to compensate.

See, to me that's the key difference and why the mechanics of flaws are a good idea for game balance if properly executed and the flaws are actually things that come up during play. I don't see how they encourage one kind of play over another, although I can see how they would be used by several different kinds of play.

A min/maxer who is not also an RPer takes a flaw to boost something they want boosted just because they want the extra feat. They don't care about the flaw itself and they probably don't RP it.

A RPer takes a flaw because they want there to be a mechanical consequence to a particular liablity they RP. For some RPers this helps solidify versimilitude (I'm one of these). They get a feat in compensation, to help keep the party balanced, but they would have RPed the flaw regardless.

A min/maxer who also RPs can take the flaw either for the mechanical boost from the feat or because they want the character to have the flaw on it's own and uses the feat to boost something else they would like boosted. In either case, that same player can just as well go ahead and RP the flaw regardless of the motivation for taking it.

Having flaws, even exploitable flaws, doesn't encourage any hypothetical blank-slate gamer to min/max. Having exploitable flaws, or any exploitable mechanic, does encourage those already inclined to min/max to make use of flaws. Any exploitable mechanic does though, it doesn't really matter if the RP component is clautrophobia, being from a partiular region of Faerun, or refusing to own valuable items.

JaxGaret
2008-10-14, 03:44 PM
Agreed with everything Bait just said. He articulated my thoughts on the subject much better than I did, and in a far less opprobrious manner, obviously.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 03:53 PM
same here- I am less good at the articulation and better at the "what about someone who does it this way" suggestions.

turkishproverb
2008-10-14, 04:17 PM
Because if the mechanical benefit only comes if you roleplay it, that encourages roleplaying. Well duh.

And Flaw systems in books require you roleplay the fault if you take it.


That is only true if you believe that powergamers are incapable of roleplaying otherwise - which puts you firmly back into Stormwind territory.

Or, it could be true if it helps powergamers roleplay something whether or not they would eventually otherwise. Aversion therapy helping someone drop cigarettes is still a good thing if they could have been stopped through using the patch.


Precisely. A good DM encourages people to roleplay. Note that whether the lost eye has a mechanical benefit is, at this point, irrelevant.

Yep, except it caused the character to not have the eye, which presented this wonderful opportunity for the player to react to a situation they wouldn't have with the eye. Hmm..


Nice straw man you got there.


Funny, I was just holding a mirror up to yours. He seemed happier in the cornfield, you should have left him there. :)





False. In one way, you get a flaw that you don't have to play in the game to get something. Just because you don't see the difference doesn't mean it's not there. Remember that not everybody shares your playstyle.

Never said everyone did. And don't bring up your own false points. Read most Flaw rules again, because they clearly state that they must be roleplayed if taken.




(A) you get a bonus if you write down a flaw, even if you completely ignore it later or it was such an obscure flaw that it never comes up.
(B) you get a bonus if you roleplay a flaw.
(C) who needs bonuses, roleplaying is its own reward (hence the name, "roleplaying game").

A: No, because the rules say you have to roleplay the flaw, so you cannot ignore it later. As for the or issue, frankly this sounds alot like the DM that gets angry because they didn't travel through the lake of fire to get the holy avenger to fight the BBEG but instead constructed a detailed plan to collapse his castle on him. They don't like that the player did something they didn't plan for, and don't want to change.
B: That's something both systems apply, though. Again, your making the argument that a DM ignores the rules and lets them not roleplay flaws they've taken.
C: True, but a player often needs/is helped by an incentive to learn that or try roleplaying something new.



There is an obvious sliding scale here, where C is more strongly focused on roleplaying.

If by sliding scale you mean sudden cliff, I'd agree.



No, there isn't. And even i there is, a Of course, good DMs will not let you get away with A - but like I said, good DMs can certainly encourage roleplaying.

Yes, because A is a fallacy that doesn't related to the actual issue of mechanically induced flaws.


You're essentially asserting that (A) doesn't exist, because good DMs will make you roleplay it, thus putting it under (B). But guess what? Not every DM is a good DM.

Ah, so if someone is a bad DM and doesn't follow the rules, it becomes the fault of the rules? Again, the flaws system requires you RP any flaws you take, and the idea that support for such a system means support for every jokey pathetic hackmaster style flaw is a straw man at best.



Yeah, I'm sure that calling people ignorant means that you're by definition correct. Welcome to my ignore list.

Funny, he seemed to be trying to help you/understand you. You did use the concept wrong, similar to your idea that if someone roleplays something they took for mechanical benefit it doesn't "count" as roleplaying.


And again, don't delete half my points in an attempt to ignore them. I address your posts fully, please do the same.


On the contrary, it happens all the time. For instance, it is quite common for players to play a dwarf that hates elves. Or an elf that hates dwarves. Or a barbarian that hates wizards.

Good for them, they don't need the incentive, at least not for that particular flaw.




This is a flaw. Indeed, GURPS quantifies it (intolerance, 5 points). It is also an obstacle, say, whenever you have to ask help from the local elf village. In D&D, you get no mechanical bonus for taking this flaw, and yet people do it all the time.

agreed, even if it is kind've ingrained in fantasy at this point, but again it seems so far your just arguing that some players don't need this or alternatively that intolerance is not needed as a mechanical flaw. No evidence against the whole concept.




Note that the paladin code is a poor example; it is seen as a liability because it limits your teammates; you may lose your status if your party members misbehave (although this is a prime example of bad DM'ing).

Unless your party gets really bad, yea its bad DMing.



Sorry, but that really doesn't follow. The statement that "point-buy flaws encourage optimizing" is not contradicted by the existence of a system that has optimizing but no point-buy flaws.

neither is the statement supported by the existence of a system that has point buy flaws. It simply means they exist in both places.


Note that optimization is visibly present in systems like Shadowrun, GURPS, Hackmaster, White Wolf, and Champions - most of which do have flaws.

so, because most systems have flaws and all systems have power gamers, it becomes the fault of the mechanic most systems have? Circular logic at best.


Furthermore, whenever D&D optimization comes up, a frequent suggestion is that "if you can convince your DM to allow flaws, you can optimize your character further".

and? Once again, the mere fact optimizers use something does not make it inherently evil. And indeed such point greed can be turned to forced role playing if A: the flaws list is sensical, and B: The dm follows the rules and requires them to RP any flaws.



I take it you've never played Paranoia, then? :smallbiggrin:

A fair amount.



This is not actually true.

In a system that has no rules for disarming an opponent, you can try it and your DM will probably make something up (granted, this takes a bit of DMing skill). But you always have the possibility.

In a system that has explicit rules for disarming, you are disallowed from doing to unless you have the prerequisites. For instance, in 4E D&D, you can only disarm an enemy if you have the (one) power that allows it. Thus, you do not have the possibility.

Good point, although I never like 4th as an example because it is ridiculously limiting.

Ulzgoroth
2008-10-14, 08:19 PM
I really like the 'flaws for build points' concept. Obviously, it can be prone to abuse, especially if the GM is inattentive and doubly so if they let the players outright cheat and ignore their flaws. Or if the system is tacked-on, poorly-designed tripe like the one in the d20 SRD, or even just badly balanced.

A prime 'bad balance' example would be Unisystem. The drawbacks probably really are worth the points you get...but due to a fairly deranged build-point vs. character advancement structure, the build points you get go much farther than the XP you can later use to buy off the drawbacks.

Gurps wouldn't even be remotely possible without it, though. If you want your character to have delusions, or a code of honor, without being compensated for it...ok, as you like. If you want the character to be a psionic potted plant, a sapient goat, or something like that, you kind of need to get something back for your various missing capabilities.

Even if you're sticking to near-normal, they grant the neat possibility of having a character with phenomenal powers who is actually balanced with another much more moderate character, because to afford the powers they had to take on a load of nasty disadvantages.

Weiser_Cain
2008-10-14, 09:22 PM
OK I'm working on an alternate class feature system now...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-14, 10:05 PM
Having flaws, even exploitable flaws, doesn't encourage any hypothetical blank-slate gamer to min/max. Having exploitable flaws, or any exploitable mechanic, does encourage those already inclined to min/max to make use of flaws. Any exploitable mechanic does though, it doesn't really matter if the RP component is clautrophobia, being from a partiular region of Faerun, or refusing to own valuable items.

Here I would disagree.

Some amount of min/maxing is normal for any character, and having the Flaw system right there is an attractive nuisance. It can encourage even the best of men to say "well, I suppose he can be afraid of spiders too" if that extra point can be used to good effect. I won't repeat my original post, but such thinking is hazardous to actually developing a character - particularly when it's easier to think "oh, that's Hank the Shy Nearsighted Mage" instead of "oh, that's Hank. He doesn't talk much but will totally flip out if you take away those pince-nez he's wearing. Blind as a bat he is."

I suppose you could push back on the idea that every character has some amount of min/maxing built in... but in my experience, exceptions to this rule are rare - and for good reason. Playing the melee wizard or the heavy armor rogue might seem like fun for awhile, but not only are you unable to do much of anything, you become The Load (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad). Because of this, everyone keeps at least an eye on making their character effective in-game, even if the character is not super-effective. This natural tendency to make an effective character results in some min/maxing... and that tendency can latch onto a Flaw system with a vengeance.

JaxGaret
2008-10-15, 01:49 AM
Playing the melee wizard or the heavy armor rogue might seem like fun for awhile, but not only are you unable to do much of anything, you become The Load (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad).

Only if built improperly. You can easily have a competent melee wizard or heavy armor rogue, as long as you are not too particular about it being a straight Wizard or Rogue - but those are metagame concepts, not character concepts.


Because of this, everyone keeps at least an eye on making their character effective in-game, even if the character is not super-effective. This natural tendency to make an effective character results in some min/maxing

Agreed.


... and that tendency can latch onto a Flaw system with a vengeance.

Yes, it can, but will it? Only persons already willing to use the system in a way that the rest of their gaming group would find disingenuous would be the ones "latching onto the Flaw system with a vengeance". Players who have no problems co-existing peacefully in their group - whether they be optimizers, min-maxers, or what have you - won't have problems with or without a Flaw system.

Saph
2008-10-15, 06:09 AM
Yes, it can, but will it? Only persons already willing to use the system in a way that the rest of their gaming group would find disingenuous would be the ones "latching onto the Flaw system with a vengeance".

I'm not sure about this. The reason the Flaw system is bad is because it's a constant temptation to take not-particularly-in-character but mechanically convenient Flaws to boost your character's power at no cost.

It wouldn't be so bad if the Flaws encouraged roleplaying, but they don't, really. Most of them are physical things that wouldn't be particularly interesting to RP (like Meager Fortitude - listening to people who go on and on about their health is annoying enough in RL without having it in games as well). I think that the most interesting RPG disdvantages/flaws tend to be social or mental ones like intolerance, delusions, etc, rather than "you have a -3 penalty on Insert Save Here".

- Saph

Satyr
2008-10-15, 06:33 AM
I'm not sure about this. The reason the Flaw system is bad is because it's a constant temptation to take not-particularly-in-character but mechanically convenient Flaws to boost your character's power at no cost.

This depends strongly on the players and is only a real problem when there is no common understanding (or skill) of optimizing in a group. If the ways of roleplaying are at conflict in a group, there will likely be a problem regardless of the existence of a flaw system. The flaws can make it easier to optimise a character even to the point that the character's versimilitude is hurt, but it is neither a requirement nor a necessity, that a flaw system will worsen this problem.


I think that the most interesting RPG disdvantages/flaws tend to be social or mental ones like intolerance, delusions, etc, rather than "you have a -3 penalty on Insert Save Here".

I completely agree in this point. And this is one of the reasons why I think that the D&D flaw system is rather badly designed.

Chrono22
2008-10-15, 06:46 AM
From a DMing perspective, I think a flaw should only be allowed when it can be relevant, and when it make sense based on the character's backstory. No freebies.
As a typical rule, I'm leery of allowing any flaws- but occasionally I find players are willing to make some mechanical sacrifices to roleplay.
Kind of off topic, but here's a flaw I whipped up for a character I'm playing:
Claustrophobia
Prerequisite: Character level 1st.
Summary: You have an irrational fear of enclosed and confined spaces. Depending on the severity of the situation, you can be overcome by a sense of paranoia and nervousness, to outright panic.
Effect: Whenever you enter an enclosed area (buildings, small rooms, 10 ft. hallways), you must succeed a DC 12 will save or become shaken. The shaken condition remains until the source of your phobia is removed. Each hour you remain in an enclosed space, you must make an additional will save, of suffer the shaken condition. If you are already shaken, you instead become frightened.
Whenever you attempt to enter a confined space (a closet, a narrow tunnel, a chest) you must succeed a DC 15 will save to enter. If you fail, you become shaken for 1d4+1 rounds. Even if you succeed, you become shaken and remain so until you leave the confined space. Each round you are in a confined space, you must succeed a DC 18 will save or become frightened. If you are already frightened, you instead become panicked.
Benefit: One bonus feat, chosen at first level.
Special: You cannot gain claustrophobia as a flaw if you are immune to fear.

This flaw is for a half cherubar (avariel), half shoal elf. Winged elves (I forget which, cherubar or avariel) already have a kind of claustrophobia, and a love for wide open spaces. My character was also kept in a cage as an infant. So, I think this flaw suits him.

JaxGaret
2008-10-15, 11:08 AM
This depends strongly on the players and is only a real problem when there is no common understanding (or skill) of optimizing in a group. If the ways of roleplaying are at conflict in a group, there will likely be a problem regardless of the existence of a flaw system. The flaws can make it easier to optimise a character even to the point that the character's versimilitude is hurt, but it is neither a requirement nor a necessity, that a flaw system will worsen this problem.

I completely agree in this point. And this is one of the reasons why I think that the D&D flaw system is rather badly designed.

I was going to formulate my own response to Saph, but it was basically going to be a rehash of what Satyr stated here. So +1.


From a DMing perspective, I think a flaw should only be allowed when it can be relevant, and when it make sense based on the character's backstory. No freebies.

Agreed. I definitely wouldn't allow Disadvantages that aren't, well, disadvantages.


As a typical rule, I'm leery of allowing any flaws- but occasionally I find players are willing to make some mechanical sacrifices to roleplay.

I think that if you have good players, there's no reason to be leery of flaws.


This flaw is for a half cherubar (avariel), half shoal elf. Winged elves (I forget which, cherubar or avariel) already have a kind of claustrophobia, and a love for wide open spaces. My character was also kept in a cage as an infant. So, I think this flaw suits him.

I know that Avariel are generally claustrophobic, not sure about Cherubar.

sonofzeal
2008-10-15, 11:37 AM
You know.... in D&D I can totally see both sides of this issue. It doesn't make sense that a character with poor eyesight would be better swinging a sword, and flaws do allow for serious twinking.

On the other side, I personally generally try to choose flaws that thematically fit the character in question. My alchoholic Drow has "murky-eyed" ('cause he's lived long enough aboveground for the light to have permanently damaged his eyes), and "pathetic Charisma" (cause he's a bitter alcoholic whose few social skills got picked in Goblin Thudrud years ago). My Halfling Artificer has "Inattentive" (he's much more of a lab tech than an adventurer) and "Vulnerable" (because as a lad tech, his physical coordination is poor). So, I think it can be done properly.

In the middle... well, what it gives you is feats. I think d20 seriously shortchanged us on feats, as they're one of the best ways to customize the character beyond simple race/class choices. I'm all in favor of any legal way of getting more feats to work with, even though the flaw list does tend to favor spellcasters ("shaky" and "noncombattant" specifically) over melee fighters. You do potentially get something for nothing, but it's something you should have had all along, so I'm not going to complain.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-15, 01:42 PM
It wouldn't be so bad if the Flaws encouraged roleplaying, but they don't, really. Most of them are physical things that wouldn't be particularly interesting to RP (like Meager Fortitude - listening to people who go on and on about their health is annoying enough in RL without having it in games as well). I think that the most interesting RPG disdvantages/flaws tend to be social or mental ones like intolerance, delusions, etc, rather than "you have a -3 penalty on Insert Save Here".

- Saph

This may have to do with DnD players' strong tendency to say "It's not directly tied to a skill, so let's just roleplay it out", actually. Since feats predominantly give a hard bonus, they figure "Hey, let's make sure Flaws predominantly give a hard penalty" Not that I disagree, since I tend to love social advantages or disadvantages, but it makes a level of sense in this game.

horseboy
2008-10-16, 01:13 AM
I completely agree in this point. And this is one of the reasons why I think that the D&D flaw system is rather badly designed.
Well, it's D&D, of course it's badly designed. As a whole I'm usually fine with merits/flaws or what ever you want to call them. D&D, it stinks on toast, with everything else.

Satyr
2008-10-16, 01:42 AM
Well, it's D&D, of course it's badly designed. As a whole I'm usually fine with merits/flaws or what ever you want to call them. D&D, it stinks on toast, with everything else.

While I have my problems with many elements of the D&D rules as well. I think this critic is perhaps a bit harsh.
Or my sarcasm detector failed.


The first Game of Ice and Fire RPG by Guardians of Order hat a different system of drawbacks, which was better done. If I remember it correctly, the weaknesses were hierarchized from 1 to 3 points, were the more limiting drawbacks equaled more points. Each point corresponds to one skill point, while three points were equal to one feat.
This system was okay and could be used for a regular D&D game as well, but the list of drawbacks was very limited and setting specific. But with a bit of creativity, it should be possible to implement it.