How to prevent one of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories: PC Edition

[AMFV]

Which is why I am so frustrated.

Everyone else has made such a dysfunctional character that my only choices are to play a character I don't want to play in a game I don't want to play in, or leave. Basically, the campaign is already a train-wreck no matter what happens.

For you? Probably. I will say that not being overly attached to a character concept or when I'm trying characters I originally wasn't super into is probably when I've had the most fun.

[Jay R]

There is a difference between "accept" and "follow unquestionably".

Yes, there is, and I wrote the one I meant.

Your problem here isn’t that you refuse to follow unquestionably the DM’s ruling. It’s that after questioning it and hearing the DM’s reasonable judgment call, you are refusing to accept it. You just spent a lot of time arguing about it with people online who can’t even affect the game.

The ruling that a flaw that can’t affect you isn’t worth anything is a reasonable approach. Your preferred ruling would also be a reasonable approach. But the DM went the other direction.

That happens all the time in games. *NO* DM always rules the way the player wants.

DMs are human and they make mistakes as well, and you can just as easily ruin a game by not letting the DM know when they are making it unpleasant for others.

True. But:

A. This ruling is fair and reasonable, and is simply not a big enough deal to ruin the game.

B. You can also ruin a game by accusing a DM of unfairness when he’s being reasonable. That’s what this one sounds like.

C. You can also ruin a game by thinking that a single ruling against you has made the game unpleasant. In many of your stories, the thing that upsets you is something you could choose to just move past. There will always be rulings that you disagree with. ALWAYS. If you can’t accept that and have fun anyway, then you will continue to play into gaming horror stories.

D. I’m not advising the DM right now. I’m advising the player who asked how to prevent a gaming horror story, specifically as a PC edition.

My best advice, as somebody who doesn’t get that kind of drama in his games, is this: Play the kind of character who will do what the party is doing, and be the kind of player who accepts (sometimes after discussion) the DM’s ruling.

Based on my 4 decades of experience, that is the best way to prevent a gaming horror story: PC edition.

[Kane0]

Which is why I am so frustrated.

Everyone else has made such a dysfunctional character that my only choices are to play a character I don't want to play in a game I don't want to play in, or leave. Basically, the campaign is already a train-wreck no matter what happens.

Umm, no mate. You can play whatever you want, just like them. It’s not your job to make a balanced party nor manage an unbalanced one. Play whatever you’re going to enjoy (without actively ruining other people’s fun).

You’re DM view is kicking in again.

[zinycor]

I believe you could have lots of fun if you adjust your expectations.

For example: Me and my friends about once a year get together to watch terrible movies, these movies are either boring and/or very weird... But I don't care, because I get to do that with my friends...

I believe you could approach gaming with Brian and the others the same way, focus on the social aspects, the game is secondary.

[Lord of Shadows]

Everyone else has made such a dysfunctional character that my only choices are to play a character I don't want to play in a game I don't want to play in, or leave. Basically, the campaign is already a train-wreck no matter what happens.

Since your Session Zero was so dysfunctional, and is not likely to be revisited, your choices are:

1) Play a character that you don't really want to but that fits in with the others, and enjoy the game regardless of what happens.

2) Play a character that you want to but that may not fit in with the others, and enjoy the game regardless of what happens.

3) Don't play with this group.

Only you can make that decision. All of us here can only offer the best advice we can come up with, but we aren't sitting at your gaming table across from Bob, Dave, Sarah and Brian.

[zinycor]

Since you see your character as a refugee, maybe Dave helped you get out of your country and that turned into a friendship?

[Mr Beer]

A game like this, I would tend to make a straight-up brawler of some kind and lead the charge into battle a lot. It's not my job to create a balanced party or magic cohesion into place if no-one else gives a crap about it. I'm also not going to spend even 20 minutes angsting about my backstory and motivations if I think the game is going to be a trainwreck anyway. I'm going to turn down my expectations and have fun with an easily built, highly expendable character.

[zinycor]

A game like this, I would tend to make a straight-up brawler of some kind and lead the charge into battle a lot. It's not my job to create a balanced party or magic cohesion into place if no-one else gives a crap about it. I'm also not going to spend even 20 minutes angsting about my backstory and motivations if I think the game is going to be a trainwreck anyway. I'm going to turn down my expectations and have fun with an easily built, highly expendable character.

Same here!

[Talakeal]

Well, you guys convinced me. I think the pirate idea is probably the way to go for this campaign, and I was able to tweak my character accordingly.

Of course, nothing came of it, as I tried, and failed, to convince Brian to let us play pirates. It was a hard no sell for him, both because he hates pirates on principle and because he thinks the game would be too combat heavy to keep his interest and because it would be too hard to come up with an overarching story when the players have so much agency.

Also, I got an interesting quote from him: "I don't have the same skill that you do for precise balance; I will never be able to reliably make sure the players win every fight but still feel like abject failures at everything they do like you can."

A game like this, I would tend to make a straight-up brawler of some kind and lead the charge into battle a lot. It's not my job to create a balanced party or magic cohesion into place if no-one else gives a crap about it. I'm also not going to spend even 20 minutes angsting about my backstory and motivations if I think the game is going to be a train-wreck anyway. I'm going to turn down my expectations and have fun with an easily built, highly expendable character.

Its not like character creation is a chore for me, so I don't really care about how fast and easy to play something is.

Besides, there is always the remote chance that the game doesn't self destruct, so I might as well be prepared!

Umm, no mate. You can play whatever you want, just like them. It’s not your job to make a balanced party nor manage an unbalanced one. Play whatever you’re going to enjoy (without actively ruining other people’s fun).

You’re DM view is kicking in again.

A lot of the advice in this thread boils down to telling me I need to change my expectations and character concept until I have something that can hold the rest of the party together.

Although I think it is mostly practical advice (you can't change other people, only yourself) than a sort of moral imperative.

[zinycor]

Did Brian offer any alternative as to how the group would know each other?

Personally I disagree with Brian's view, since a pirate game would most likely be more about exploration than combat, but if that's Brian's view, you should ask him what sort of group would he like.

[Quertus]

Also, I got an interesting quote from him: "I don't have the same skill that you do for precise balance; I will never be able to reliably make sure the players win every fight but still feel like abject failures at everything they do like you can."

You know, I was going to comment on a lot more, like how "pirates" can mean different things to different people, or how "captain Ogre" doesn't necessitate a pirate game, or how while "you cannot change other people, only yourself" is true, the best games IME come when you (I) successfully convince everyone to change their behavior (particularly when you're starting with a dysfunctional table).

But then I read this bit, and decided it should take priority.

Now, much like you shouldn't have gone to the GM and asked for something you know he hates (I believe I advocated going to him for some starting quest to bind your group together?), this will require you using / utilizing "do nothing" skills. It would, IMO, be potentially educational for you to just keep your eyes open, and your mouth shut, for at least 5 sessions, to look at any differences in how the GM's content is received, and how the GM's content differers from yours, in this regard.

Then, at some appropriate point, at least 5 sessions in, and maybe not on game night¹, if you think you've learned something, ask the others to confirm your observations. If you haven't… actually, I'd probably just ask the GM for examples, repeat.

¹ "when to bring things up" could be a thread all its own.

[kyoryu]

Well, you guys convinced me. I think the pirate idea is probably the way to go for this campaign, and I was able to tweak my character accordingly.

Of course, nothing came of it, as I tried, and failed, to convince Brian to let us play pirates. It was a hard no sell for him, both because he hates pirates on principle and because he thinks the game would be too combat heavy to keep his interest and because it would be too hard to come up with an overarching story when the players have so much agency.

"Okay, so, your concern is too much combat? How do you see a pirate game going? How could you see a pirate game going that would be interesting to you?" Bonus points if you can point out examples of pirate-based media that do NOT involve nothing but combat.

"So, your concern is plot? Do you consider plot to mean forcing players down particular paths, or dealing with particular problems? If you really want a specific plot, can you at least give us the movie-trailer level synopsis of it so that we can make characters appropriate to it?" Also give him examples (from past games, if necessary) of situations where "plot" and "freedom" worked together. Note that for this to work, the players will still need the synopsis, as "yes, we agree this is what the game is about, and agree that our characters will be interested in and pursue this" is pretty much required.

Also, I got an interesting quote from him: "I don't have the same skill that you do for precise balance; I will never be able to reliably make sure the players win every fight but still feel like abject failures at everything they do like you can."

Interesting. I'd say that:

1) the PCs should just smoosh things once in a while. These should be things that are reasonbly smooshable based on the PCs perceived power levels.
2) the PCs should have tense fights a lot of time. These should be things that, going in, the PCs should go "whoa, this is going to be tough," either by numbers or just fearsomeness.
3) the PCs should get smooshed or nearly so once in a while. This should happen from things that are fairly obviously fearsome and should be able to smoosh the PCs.

A lot of the advice in this thread boils down to telling me I need to change my expectations and character concept until I have something that can hold the rest of the party together.

Although I think it is mostly practical advice (you can't change other people, only yourself) than a sort of moral imperative.

Or set your expectations for involvement. "I don't see how this is going to work. I want to play with you guys, but really, we need some kind of cohesive idea of what the game is if this isn't going to self-destruct."

Or on a more positive, proactive front "hey, I don't see how this game is going to work with these characters. Can you give me an idea of how you expect a random session to go? Because if we do X, I see character A not wanting to do it, and if we do Y, I see character B in the same situation."

Or even, "yeah, I know we're playing a game, but what is the game about? I don't want a full plot synopsis, but something like a movie trailer would be awesome, so we can make sure that we all make characters that fit in with the idea and will work with it and each other."

[Kane0]

If you're familiar with Darths & Droids, try to be more like Jim than Pete.

Which is to say, take a step back. There is no optimal path for you to take other than walking away, but you've established that won't be happening so disengage your tendency to analyse and control. Go with the flow, let everyone else take the lead and try to enjoy the stupid antics that ensue.

[MitschuGames]

{Scrubbed}

A Flaw is a disadvantage, something that hinders or limits your character in some fashion. It is not an extension of an existing character trait you've already gotten rewarded for (extra metagame actions for other tasks since you aren't crafting, and didn't have to put any points into crafting, freeing those up for other skills), to double-dip extra points out of.

{Scrubbed} "My character already will never do X, they're not built for it. So I'm going to take this extra penalty to Xing to get a bonus to Y." A pacifist picking the "can't wield swords" flaw, a mute taking the "can't speak Common" flaw, a non-crafter taking "really bad at crafting", all are in the same school of abusing the system to squeeze a few extra points out of a concept your character already has going for them.

Since it's your own system, {Scrubbed} - you know the rules so well that you know how to bend them, and expect an untested GM running your system to just roll with it and accept that it's "balanced" because you so decree, while also claiming that you aren't a backseat GM. Player-GM trust is the most important thing in a campaign, and you're {Scrubbed} putting him in a spot where he can't trust your intentions and knows that you'll try to {Scrubbed} manipulate a system you know better than him, whereever possible.

If I were in his position, I'd just shrug and say "Okay guys, quick changeup, I'm dropping the homebrew system and bringing out the D&D rulebooks, which actually have clearly defined expectations for what character builds and optimizations are allowed."

Now, as for a suggestion: as you've described your character as someone who doesn't do work like the little people, and in the spirit of compromise, I suggest a new Flaw to take over your Slow Crafter.

Lazy: This character does not engage in downtime metagames at all, unless compelled to do so by others (the "attacker" rolls their will against hers) or bit by sudden motivation or important need (self check against will, DC ~15 with circumstances penalties / bonuses as apply.) Whether at camp in the wilds, at the tavern in town, or resting in a nook in the sprawling maze you find yourself trapped in, they will not lift a finger to help the party with 'demeaning' tasks. If firewood needs collecting, weapons need sharpening, or even someone has to go talk to the noble lord about payment, they will always insist it is someone else's turn to do so, or that they have something more important to attend to, and go back to their malingering (such as sleeping, training, or poorly cleaning house.) If forced or compelled to take downtime action, will accomplish the bare minimum possible and take as much time as they can. Treat this as if they had always rolled a 1 on both checks, plus any skill modifiers. If successful on a self-motivation check, the task proceeds using their normal checks. Despite this drawback, they are still surprisingly reliable in other ways.

You give up an important part of the game, and get points to put into other stuff as a result. Speak with your GM about how many is fair for giving up an entire aspect of the game, not just a part you never intended to use in the first place. I think he'll probably give you a few more than originally planned.

Having a high Wisdom means that you are less likely to be forced into doing things (since party members will have to overcome your high will save to force you to get up and get to work), but also that you are fairly uniquely capable of using that same Will to occasionally "snapouttafunk!" and accomplish an important task when the plot demands.

This does not affect you in other aspects of the game, except for roleplay value or flavor. (You won't falter at killing enemies with the team, but somebody else has to rummage through the bodies afterwards looking for trinkets, while you "supervise" to make sure you aren't getting ripped off of your share of the loot. You won't walk away mid-sidequest offer because you got suddenly bored and stopped caring, but unless you accept on the spot, that "I'll check back in with you on that when I'm not so busy" never happens (since it would be a metagame followup between campaigns), unless somebody else anticipates it and either rouses you to the task or goes in your stead.)

[zinycor]

Talakeal doesn't like role-playing flaws, he likes mechanical flaws.

[Quizatzhaderac]

The game doesn't have PC races per se, humans are the only default race and everything else is available as a DM option.

I'm thinking maybe you want more than two categories. I'd suggest four:

1) Standard races (Humans only in your system): The DM is strongly encouraged to include and players can pretty much assume they're an option.
2) Setting races: Limited by the setting, but identified by the system as working as player races.
3) Unorthodox races: Description creates player expectation that these races aren't usually allowed. These tend to create some problems that a DM would have to work around. Maybe provide the DM some hints are where they may/might not work.
4) Not supported: Marked by total omission as playable races. Creates huge problems that require major playstyle /system changes to work around. If the DM wants his as a PCs they need t take responsibility for integrating it into the system.

Maintain, sure. But learning how to actually repair or craft gear seems kind of wasteful when you can just hire an expert metalworker.

My character likely would have been a very bad leader if things had ever gotten to that point; she actively scorned social abilities in favor of martial ones.

This is pretty tangential, so feel free to just ignore it.

So here's the thing: "martial abilities" don't just mean personal fighting abilities. In a war a grunt is going to spend more time digging ditches/building battlements than fighting and an army won't function unless most of it's fighting force does other useful things. Especially in a pre-modern army where supply lines might not be a thing. Romantizations of war gloss over this, but your system actually has a specific focus on this.

Think about it this way: You're a noble and you're telling your retainers how to train their children (you future army). You need to train a bunch of people who to fight and a bunch of people to do all of the non-combat martial arts. Won't it make sense to have people that can craft and fight? (including other combinations like fight and build, fight and valet, fight and haul stuff, fight and cook, et cetra) Training 40 hours a week versus 10 doesn't make you four times the warrior in real life, and it doesn't sound like never doing other work helps one be a good warrior in your system either.

[Talakeal]

If I were in his position, I'd just shrug and say "Okay guys, quick changeup, I'm dropping the homebrew system and bringing out the D&D rulebooks, which actually have clearly defined expectations for what character builds and optimizations are allowed."

I really hope you aren't talking about 3E.

Talakeal doesn't like role-playing flaws, he likes mechanical flaws.

When did I say that?

As a game designer I think every flaw should be both mechanical and role-playing, but as a player I aways take tons of flaws without any mechanical effect.

So here's the thing: "martial abilities" don't just mean personal fighting abilities. In a war a grunt is going to spend more time digging ditches/building battlements than fighting and an army won't function unless most of it's fighting force does other useful things. Especially in a pre-modern army where supply lines might not be a thing. Romantizations of war gloss over this, but your system actually has a specific focus on this.

Think about it this way: You're a noble and you're telling your retainers how to train their children (you future army). You need to train a bunch of people who to fight and a bunch of people to do all of the non-combat martial arts. Won't it make sense to have people that can craft and fight? (including other combinations like fight and build, fight and valet, fight and haul stuff, fight and cook, et cetra) Training 40 hours a week versus 10 doesn't make you four times the warrior in real life, and it doesn't sound like never doing other work helps one be a good warrior in your system either.

Maybe. It really depends on a lot of factors.

[zinycor]

When did I say that?

As a game designer I think every flaw should be both mechanical and role-playing, but as a player I aways take tons of flaws without any mechanical effect.

Here you said so

If they don't have any mechanical effects, how are they flaws at all though?
.

[Talakeal]

Here you said so

Let me clarify what I meant:

Flaws with mechanical benefits should likewise have mechanical disadvantages and vice versa.

[Alhallor]

Okay I reread the thread I just want to add some stuff.

Flaws: This pops out through the thread every know and then and me not having read the Heart of Darkness system makes it quite hard to really judge the flaw-system in it's interity, but I still want to give some of my thoughts here.

I have played different system with different flaw system before. As an example the old world of Darkness rulebooks list some flaws who are really really, all of the time and perhaps once in a blue moon a kind of advantage (because some flaws can also be advantages and vice versa regarding the circumstances.) They feel bad in every situation, like one where you go besides a mirror a strange amalgamation that you not only can see but HEAR whispers strange things to you to startle you (that can pop up every so often, but giving it in the hand of the GM when to use it and world of Darkness in general being more of a storytelling game than a TTRPG, these kind of flaws feel like they work surprisingly well.)

In contrast I have played a system where I feel I need to take the maximum number of flaws available that effect my character at least as possible to make a character that I feel can at least do something (and not even that really competently.)

What do you want out of flaws? Has you presented the flaw-system to more people? What do they think about that? Like the other players on the table, what kind of flaws did they take? If any at all?

Regarding letting loose and just having fun (I read it but can't find the quote right know):

I can do that, some other people I know don't have a problem doing that, even when they prefer roleplaying and serious play way more. But I also know enough people that can't really just cut loose and roll dice to have fun because it's just not their idea of fun. Something needs to happen here and because a second session zero seems to be out, how about some ideas. (these may be not helpful at all, it's just something that springs to my mind and be an acceptable solution too me.)

1. Change the system to one the current GM (Brian? I think it was Brian...) Knows better than your system. I guess you want to be a player to see how he would GM to know what he actually enyojs because I really think you consciously or unconsciously GM situations and encounters that you would enjoy.

2. Try to cut losse and enjoy the game. Perhaps it's not impossible for you. Perhaps two to three sessions, or as much as you can survive. I can have fun with a mechanically inferior character doing stuff, but not when everyone and everything reminds me all the time that I'm mechanically inferior. I also enjoy doing dumb things with characters that fit the character concept but only if the other players can laugh with me and not if they remind me all the time that what I was doing is stupid.

3. If they are your friends try to contact them outside your playing time and brainstorm a bit. That doesn't mean you have to Co-GM. More like that you could talk to the fairy player about your concerns about the fairy and ask her if she saw the problem you see too and even if not, ask how you could still reach her at an emergency. Ask the ogre player how he want's to protect the other characters (because he wants to be some kind of leader and that seems to be a leader thing to do.)

4. If still possible ask the current GM how the characters could come together, he doesn't have to do all the work, but perhaps there is still something that springs to his mind and he somehow still can weave all of you together.

Regarding this: Also, I got an interesting quote from him: "I don't have the same skill that you do for precise balance; I will never be able to reliably make sure the players win every fight but still feel like abject failures at everything they do like you can."

How did you feel when he told that to you? To me it sounds like a pretty bad insult just reading it but I wasn't there so I obviously didn't get the tone.

[Talakeal]

Okay I reread the thread I just want to add some stuff.

Flaws: This pops out through the thread every know and then and me not having read the Heart of Darkness system makes it quite hard to really judge the flaw-system in it's interity, but I still want to give some of my thoughts here.

I have played different system with different flaw system before. As an example the old world of Darkness rulebooks list some flaws who are really really, all of the time and perhaps once in a blue moon a kind of advantage (because some flaws can also be advantages and vice versa regarding the circumstances.) They feel bad in every situation, like one where you go besides a mirror a strange amalgamation that you not only can see but HEAR whispers strange things to you to startle you (that can pop up every so often, but giving it in the hand of the GM when to use it and world of Darkness in general being more of a storytelling game than a TTRPG, these kind of flaws feel like they work surprisingly well.)

In contrast I have played a system where I feel I need to take the maximum number of flaws available that effect my character at least as possible to make a character that I feel can at least do something (and not even that really competently.)

What do you want out of flaws? Has you presented the flaw-system to more people? What do they think about that? Like the other players on the table, what kind of flaws did they take? If any at all?

Generally, people take 1-4 flaws, mostly for role-playing reasons. Some people take none, and occasionally you get someone who takes a ton of them; although I have never actually had someone who did that stick around for very long. Not sure why.

They aren't necessary to make an effective character, but the merits and flaws system is kind of required to make an "against the grain" sort of character like a deadly knife fighter with a low strength or my aforementioned strong willed non-crafter.

1. Change the system to one the current GM (Brian? I think it was Brian...) Knows better than your system. I guess you want to be a player to see how he would GM to know what he actually enjoys because I really think you consciously or unconsciously GM situations and encounters that you would enjoy.

I don't think that game exists. Maybe we could go back to oWoD Mage or AD&D, but our group has played mostly home-brew for the last 15 years or so.

I hadn't though about that latter, but that is a good idea.

3. If they are your friends try to contact them outside your playing time and brainstorm a bit. That doesn't mean you have to Co-GM. More like that you could talk to the fairy player about your concerns about the fairy and ask her if she saw the problem you see too and even if not, ask how you could still reach her at an emergency. Ask the ogre player how he want's to protect the other characters (because he wants to be some kind of leader and that seems to be a leader thing to do.)

I never got any sort of leader vibe from him, that idea came out of this thread. He wants to play a stereotypical dumb brute, to the point where the DM is concerned that his character is just going to be a walking joke.

4. If still possible ask the current GM how the characters could come together, he doesn't have to do all the work, but perhaps there is still something that springs to his mind and he somehow still can weave all of you together.

Would be nice, but he doesn't want. AFAICT he has a fairly linear plot in mind, but won't give up any idea what it is.

Regarding this: Also, I got an interesting quote from him: "I don't have the same skill that you do for precise balance; I will never be able to reliably make sure the players win every fight but still feel like abject failures at everything they do like you can."

How did you feel when he told that to you? To me it sounds like a pretty bad insult just reading it but I wasn't there so I obviously didn't get the tone.

Seems that way.

Talking to him more, he was really upset with how the last game played out. Basically, he feels that he is in an environment where everyone else is simply playing very selfishly, and he is the only one who actually cares if the group as a whole actually succeeds or not, and that this means he is being taken advantage of, and that I am not doing anything to stop it.

[Duff]

Have you guys considered playing something like descent?
It looks like it would solve a bunch of your group's issues...
No more "Unfair, the GM's out to get us" because the overlord unequivocally is
The party have a reason to adventure together. You don't need to explain it




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descen...ys_in_the_Dark

[Kane0]

I never got any sort of leader vibe from him, that idea came out of this thread. He wants to play a stereotypical dumb brute, to the point where the DM is concerned that his character is just going to be a walking joke.

Like Slap Happy Jack?

[Duff]

Huge Snip - the DM is concerned that his character is just going to be a walking joke. more snip.

In some ways, this sentence hilights a big part of the issue. The GM needs to either give stronger direction about the characters to be created or be willing to roll with what the players come up with

[zinycor]

I never got any sort of leader vibe from him, that idea came out of this thread. He wants to play a stereotypical dumb brute, to the point where the DM is concerned that his character is just going to be a walking joke.

How is a walking joke a problem? Those are the easiest people to GM for... I feel like your group was too affected by White wolf games if "funny characters" = "problem characters".

[Talakeal]

How is a walking joke a problem? Those are the easiest people to GM for... I feel like your group was too affected by White wolf games if "funny characters" = "problem characters".

I have never actually seen a player who can pull off "funny", normally they try and end up just being annoying.

I am curious about how such a character is easy to DM for though.

[zinycor]

I have never actually seen a player who can pull off "funny", normally they try and end up just being annoying.

I am curious about how such a character is easy to DM for though.

never seen a funny player? You really need to find yourself a new group...

And that sort of characters are easy to Gm for because essentially all you have to give them is funny situations to act on. For a dumb brute, have people be amazed at their power, present to them ridiculously complex math and logic problems that can be solved by just ounching them. have people mock them and then get absolutely destroyed by them, and all the stupid shenanigans they find themselves with the party.

Not to forget, dumb characters don't step on the toes of intelligent or skilled characters, they allow the other players to shine quite easily.

[Lord of Shadows]

I have never actually seen a player who can pull off "funny", normally they try and end up just being annoying.

I am curious about how such a character is easy to DM for though.

I DM'd for our group in a campaign where one player was an Ogre Fighter. Typical brute, Low Int/High Str. Yes, the character was funny at times, but when the dark matter hit the rotating fan, omigosh was he a wrecking ball. I had to adjust a few things on the fly, but overall it was an amazing series of adventures. Of course, the rest of the party wasn't a Pixie Bard, a street urchin Necromancer, and an uppity Ronin fighter-type. Still, I think one was a Sylph or something. It might work.

[NichG]

For what it's worth, on designing flaws into a system:

What I do for flaws now is to tie together a specific disadvantage and advantage, rather than make flaws give general build resources. The disadvantages are designed for the purpose of creating interesting opportunities for emergent plot, or to change up gameplay assumptions, and the corresponding advantages also tend to be aimed at changing the way the character plays.

So e.g.:

'You have a chance to warp spells targeting you; 25% of spells that include you in their effect are warped in this fashion, having their effect replaced with a random one from this list. You are not affected by spells that you warp, and if you were the sole target then it jumps to a random target within the spell's range instead. '

'Unlike most entities, you were born without a soul, and instead cobble one together from the fringes of those around you in order to function. As a result, you are slippery to effects that try to bind to your nature, shedding them subtly onto those you use for camoflauge: curses, geases, magical ritual effects, permanent magic (such as stat bonuses from Wish), magical contracts, spiritual corruption, etc all slip off onto those around you instead. However, you tend to take on characteristics of strong souls near you - hanging out with a demon tends to make you detect as a demon, interact with spells as a demon, even makes you behave more demonically. If you are isolated from all other forms of macroscopic life by a distance of at least 500ft, you go into a torpor.'

[zinycor]

I must say, I love dumb characters.

They are easy and fun to roleplay, since it allows you to play a character you and your friends can always make fun of, and coing up with those situations is always a blast.

They suit any setting, no matter if it is the future, the present, or a medieval fantasy... a dumb character that hits things good always fits and will be a blast to play.

They have an actual flaw, which comes into play all the time, and makes them memorable (Unlike an emo backstory and a flaw that willl never come into play)

And as I said before, they allow others to shine. The dumb character is always a team player, since it will always need a party, since it can't smash every problem around him.