Character Flaws: Crunch vs. Fluff

[Quertus]

This is why I keep calling attention to your assumptions about what is allowed in the social contract. Yes there is an "or" in the middle but play-style dependent things* and the generalised (in that we abstract over what the social contract is) elements of good table health are being put in the same box.

Well, yes. Following the social contract is generally good for the health of the game, no?

Yes, air tends to be good for your health… unless you're, say, a fish. So there are different social contracts, different gaming cultures that might vary on certain features of what is good for the health of the game.

Still in a conversation prefaced with, "I prefer", still have the context of that particular gaming culture.

Also you appear to be equating all mistakes as holding the ball (type of ball does not matter), and not sure the out-of-character ones.

Well, now, I really ought to just say, "you're right", because the actual answer is… Hmmm… complex + "vague", not the kind of argument that the peanut gallery tends to latch onto positively.

So, instead of giving my *actual* reasons, I'll just punt and say that the context for my comments was players being handed beanies for suboptimal play producing otherwise incomprehensible behaviors.

Similarly if the system says 'play up your flaws' that can create a similar shelter for behavior that would make anyone else, IC, an enemy. Which in this case is being stated as a way to interpret flaw systems that Quertus would rather avoid, I think.

Very much so, yes.

I prefer a culture where flaws are not necessary to play a flawed character. Where (nearly) "play whatever you want" can result in me playing a Sentient Potted Plant who views things like "push buttons" and "move under own power" to be superpowers beyond his kin.

I recognize that, done wrong, given too much power to shape the culture, flaws can be a shield for otherwise bad behavior (as defined by the gaming culture).

I do not yet have a good heuristic for how to use flaws as anything but… Hmmm… a fun minigame, or a tool to attempt to (not so) subtly guide the shape of the character creation minigame & pursuant roleplay.

Gah. That wording doesn't exactly cover the various little buy-in / engagement / etc you get from personalizing your opposition in Hero/Champions. It's complicated.

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

Honestly, that whole "hindsight bias" thing sounds like the sort of excuse a certain sort of player would come up with trying to deflect the (fully justified) displeasure of the rest of the players (and their characters).

[Anonymouswizard]

- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Yeah, pacifism was the one time I actually got a disadvantage/flaw vetoed. The game was less combat heavy than your average D&D game, but the GM explicitly said he didn't want any player to not participate because it could potentially take over an hour per fight.

As a side note, I think Quertus just isn't the kind of player who'd like Fate. Which is fine, but I'll note that Fate assumes a much more explicit social contract thanks to the session zero where you work out the important parts of the game and characters together, and even by default link your PC to two others. But if you don't like the kind of drama that brings up, just play something else.

[Willie the Duck]

A simple example of two flaws that don't work in most D&D or other games with a heavy combat focus, in that they break the typical social contract for those games:
- I am a coward and flee from danger
- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Even if they're mechanically enforced and a situational thing, they are problem flaws in many games

There are flaws which won't work in just about any scenario. 'I can't or won't engage in a primary game premise' is certainly one -- although something like Combat Paralysis or Resistible Cowardice (something like roll-vs-target number every round to be able to begin to act rationally in a fight) could be possible, depending on the rest of the game mechanics (losing the first 1-2 rounds would be effectively untenable in a game like D&D where victory is usually determined in the first 2-3). Pacifism/Cowardice wouldn't work in D&D, non-lawbreaking wouldn't work for Blades in the Dark, 'Refuses to disturb the dead' would make for a rough Ghostbusters game, and so forth. Flaws walk a number of fine lines. It can't (/shouldn't, I guess) be something that turns you into an absolute load for the rest of the group, yet it shouldn't be anything that won't come up either (the ur-example might be the GURPS oneshot where someone wants to take the Terminally Ill: months to live trait for the extra 100 points or similar).

[Satinavian]

A simple example of two flaws that don't work in most D&D or other games with a heavy combat focus, in that they break the typical social contract for those games:
- I am a coward and flee from danger
- I am a pacifist and won't hurt another creature

Even if they're mechanically enforced and a situational thing, they are problem flaws in many games

(Modern) D&D is not exactly made with those in mind and it is assumed that no one does it.

But it is not that you can't do it. Having some noncombattant supporter as part of the party could work just fine. You only have to account for it when balancing encounters and the player should be willing to be on the sidelines every fight. It is not really disruptive as such and can be a good option for players who are there for the roleplaying but couldn't care less about tactical combat.

I mean, it is not as if noncombattant hirelings/NPCs travelling with a party are super rare or problematic. Why shouldn't it work when one of them is a PC instead ?

[NichG]

Yeah, pacifism was the one time I actually got a disadvantage/flaw vetoed. The game was less combat heavy than your average D&D game, but the GM explicitly said he didn't want any player to not participate because it could potentially take over an hour per fight.

As a side note, I think Quertus just isn't the kind of player who'd like Fate. Which is fine, but I'll note that Fate assumes a much more explicit social contract thanks to the session zero where you work out the important parts of the game and characters together, and even by default link your PC to two others. But if you don't like the kind of drama that brings up, just play something else.

There are flaws which won't work in just about any scenario. 'I can't or won't engage in a primary game premise' is certainly one -- although something like Combat Paralysis or Resistible Cowardice (something like roll-vs-target number every round to be able to begin to act rationally in a fight) could be possible, depending on the rest of the game mechanics (losing the first 1-2 rounds would be effectively untenable in a game like D&D where victory is usually determined in the first 2-3). Pacifism/Cowardice wouldn't work in D&D, non-lawbreaking wouldn't work for Blades in the Dark, 'Refuses to disturb the dead' would make for a rough Ghostbusters game, and so forth. Flaws walk a number of fine lines. It can't (/shouldn't, I guess) be something that turns you into an absolute load for the rest of the group, yet it shouldn't be anything that won't come up either (the ur-example might be the GURPS oneshot where someone wants to take the Terminally Ill: months to live trait for the extra 100 points or similar).

At least for me, I wouldn't have any problems with someone playing a non-combatant or a coward as long as the GM was on board and we picked a setting/situation where it was reasonable. But I find that I would be hesitant about someone taking a mechanical flaw where they had to roll a check each round to act rationally. I guess its because in the former case, everyone else knows 'this person is not going to fight' and can plan around that whereas in the latter case you can't rely on them. I probably wouldn't try to veto it still...

But what I might veto would be if they picked the 'roll to act rationally' flaw and then on the meta level expected to be considered a core part of the party's combat lineup, asked to be involved in combat or combat-adjacent plans and got offended OOC when players didn't want to include them, etc. The issue to me would be on the one hand expecting something that would normally be reasonable because of metagame considerations, but on the other hand also acting to make it hard or annoying to provide that thing. Similarly asking for a random drifter to be quickly considered a trustworthy ally - reasonable at the metagame level; doing that but having planned in advance with the GM to actually be in the employ of the party's antagonists and planning a double-cross or having a flaw that forces (or justifies) them acting in untrustworthy ways e.g. stealing from the party, is abusing the metagame.

[Talakeal]

(Modern) D&D is not exactly made with those in mind and it is assumed that no one does it.

But it is not that you can't do it. Having some noncombattant supporter as part of the party could work just fine. You only have to account for it when balancing encounters and the player should be willing to be on the sidelines every fight. It is not really disruptive as such and can be a good option for players who are there for the roleplaying but couldn't care less about tactical combat.

I mean, it is not as if noncombattant hirelings/NPCs travelling with a party are super rare or problematic. Why shouldn't it work when one of them is a PC instead ?

Got me. But I have been kicked out of three separate groups for playing a pacifist.

[Batcathat]

Got me. But I have been kicked out of three separate groups for playing a pacifist.

I'm curious, was it the result of them wanting you to play something different and kicking you out for not doing it or was playing a pacifist some sort of instant kicking offense?

[Talakeal]

I'm curious, was it the result of them wanting you to play something different and kicking you out for not doing it or was playing a pacifist some sort of instant kicking offense?

The first time it was an instant kicking offense.

The second time they decided to "make me useful" by using me as a human shield and the group broke up due to the resultant bickering.

The third time was a bit more complicated; basically there was a monster that couldn't move and the rest of the party just ran past it without telling me, expecting me to solo it by plinking it to death with cantrips. When I told them I didn't have any offensive cantrips, they told me I was a useless mage and they wouldn't come back to help me, but, being a first level mage, I couldn't survive the AoO of joining them. This led to bickering which ended with me being told to roll up a new character or leave.

[Cluedrew]

Does that actually matter if, OOC, Drax is a PC?

I thought about and yes it does. But I agree with your larger point that no in-character motivation can justify an action forbidden out-of-character.

But now I am going to ask you (and Quertus and anyone else) a question: If Guardians of the Galaxy was a strangely high budget campaign log, do you think Drax's action was forbidden out-of-character in that campaign?

Well, now, I really ought to just say, "you're right", because the actual answer is… Hmmm… complex + "vague", not the kind of argument that the peanut gallery tends to latch onto positively.

I'd like your actual answer, although if you can work on it a bit that would be nice. I can handle complex but vague is a bit harder to work with. Or maybe just expand on the context story, that might be a good start.

I had some other replies but I think they are more effectively made but pointing you at the question above.

[Max_Killjoy]

I thought about and yes it does. But I agree with your larger point that no in-character motivation can justify an action forbidden out-of-character.

But now I am going to ask you (and Quertus and anyone else) a question: If Guardians of the Galaxy was a strangely high budget campaign log, do you think Drax's action was forbidden out-of-character in that campaign?

I'd like your actual answer, although if you can work on it a bit that would be nice. I can handle complex but vague is a bit harder to work with. Or maybe just expand on the context story, that might be a good start.

I had some other replies but I think they are more effectively made but pointing you at the question above.

I like GotG as a movie. In a movie, there are no players whose nights get ruined, no players whose plans for the situation or their characters get blown up, no TPKs to worry about.

But in a campaign, what Drax did was so clearly and openly, "screw everyone else, screw the other characters, screw the other players, screw our chances of success, screw the whole campaign, Drax is doing 'what Drax would do' right here and right now", that in any group I've ever been in, it would have caused open tension between players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see a few different types of pacifism, some of which are more of a problem in a D&D-like than others.

-1 : I seek out opportunities to start fights. This is the anti-pacifism option, and is frequently (but not always) a problem.
0: I'm fine with initiating violence, but don't seek it out. This is, I think, kinda the default. The neutral position.
1: I prefer to avoid violence where possible, but if the other ways have failed, I'll draw first. Not a problem (for me). In fact, it's my preferred position both as a DM and as a player.
2: I won't start anything, but will respond if myself or my party is assaulted without cause. Can be fine, but we're getting into the "you need to call this out at session 0" territory.
3: I will actively avoid violence, and will not willingly cause HP damage. Can be fine, as long as the player has the tools and mentality to contribute otherwise (buffing/debuffing/healing/etc). Certainly needs fair warning in advance.
4: I will actively avoid violence and will not take any action that harms another person. I will buff and heal my allies. Can be ok.
5: I will actively avoid violence and will not participate in violence in any way. Here we have a problem that will (IMO) require explicit and knowing approval from the rest of the party as well as the DM.
6: I will actively avoid violence and will actively seek to hamper/harm my allies if they start violence. This counts as being PvP for me. Not welcome in my games.

[Talakeal]

I see a few different types of pacifism, some of which are more of a problem in a D&D-like than others.

-1 : I seek out opportunities to start fights. This is the anti-pacifism option, and is frequently (but not always) a problem.
0: I'm fine with initiating violence, but don't seek it out. This is, I think, kinda the default. The neutral position.
1: I prefer to avoid violence where possible, but if the other ways have failed, I'll draw first. Not a problem (for me). In fact, it's my preferred position both as a DM and as a player.
2: I won't start anything, but will respond if myself or my party is assaulted without cause. Can be fine, but we're getting into the "you need to call this out at session 0" territory.
3: I will actively avoid violence, and will not willingly cause HP damage. Can be fine, as long as the player has the tools and mentality to contribute otherwise (buffing/debuffing/healing/etc). Certainly needs fair warning in advance.
4: I will actively avoid violence and will not take any action that harms another person. I will buff and heal my allies. Can be ok.
5: I will actively avoid violence and will not participate in violence in any way. Here we have a problem that will (IMO) require explicit and knowing approval from the rest of the party as well as the DM.
6: I will actively avoid violence and will actively seek to hamper/harm my allies if they start violence. This counts as being PvP for me. Not welcome in my games.

I would agree that five and six wouldn't work in a normal game and would need group buy in, assuming an action game like D&D. I was going for three in the above examples.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would agree that five and six wouldn't work in a normal game and would need group buy in, assuming an action game like D&D. I was going for three in the above examples.

I think some people, for whatever reason, default to thinking 5 or 6 when they hear "pacifist character." Hence the knee jerk reaction. Justified? Probably not.

[NichG]

I thought about and yes it does. But I agree with your larger point that no in-character motivation can justify an action forbidden out-of-character.

But now I am going to ask you (and Quertus and anyone else) a question: If Guardians of the Galaxy was a strangely high budget campaign log, do you think Drax's action was forbidden out-of-character in that campaign?

Pretty clearly not. It's also pretty clearly a PvP-ok campaign or at least one with OOC choreographed PvP (e.g. let's agree - my character will attack yours, lose, get taken prisoner, and that's how I'll join the group.)

That's kind of the thing - in this thread we ended up talking about personal preferences for how systems and groups handle character flaws. So it makes sense to me if someone says 'I don't like the kind of play characterized by what this other group does a lot of, so I want systems that handle flaws in a way that doesn't encourage or require that particular type of drama - but not in a way which forbids or punishes everything short of optimality either'

I don't know that I'd be 100% on the same page as Quertus about this as far as my own preferences, but I do feel like I can at least see the point and where it comes from.

[Willie the Duck]

But it is not that you can't do it. Having some noncombattant supporter as part of the party could work just fine. You only have to account for it when balancing encounters and the player should be willing to be on the sidelines every fight. It is not really disruptive as such and can be a good option for players who are there for the roleplaying but couldn't care less about tactical combat.

At least for me, I wouldn't have any problems with someone playing a non-combatant or a coward as long as the GM was on board and we picked a setting/situation where it was reasonable...
But what I might veto would be if they picked the 'roll to act rationally' flaw and then on the meta level expected to be considered a core part of the party's combat lineup, asked to be involved in combat or combat-adjacent plans and got offended OOC when players didn't want to include them, etc.

Right. I was assuming the standard 4-PC-band and the combats balanced around it. If you add a 5th who never fights or similar, it isn't a problem. Of course, 'this isn't a problem because everyone is on board and works to make it so' is a solution to most every situation in TTRPGs.

I think some people, for whatever reason, default to thinking 5 or 6 when they hear "pacifist character." Hence the knee jerk reaction. Justified? Probably not.

I think the nature of these threads is to focus on areas where things break down in some way.

[NichG]

Right. I was assuming the standard 4-PC-band and the combats balanced around it. If you add a 5th who never fights or similar, it isn't a problem. Of course, 'this isn't a problem because everyone is on board and works to make it so' is a solution to most every situation in TTRPGs.

I guess I meant more like, even in D&D the 'standard 4 PC band and combats balanced around that' is not how the game has to be run. You could underpower the opposition, overpower the party, run it flat but invite people to ramp up the cheese, use combats centered around timed objectives so having someone not get stuck in the melee to run around pulling levers or sabotaging machines or stealing the artifact of power or whatever is useful, run a campaign where there's always ways to avoid combats and the pacifist character can try to chart that path, run a bodyguards-style campaign where the pacifist character is actively being hunted by non-pacifistic forces, or have more focus on magical MacGyver problem solving shenanigans and tricks & traps ruins delving, etc... So it feels there's a lot of options to run a campaign suited to a pacifist character depending on what the other players want as well. It's manageable because you can sort of plan around it and there's not likely to be push-back.

Whereas the paradox of a player with a mechanically pacifistic character (e.g. the 'roll a check to be able to fight' character) but who still wants the campaign to largely revolve around combats which they intend to try to participate in seems much more intractable to me. That's more along the lines of something like 'choosing to play a Frenzied Berserker could be considered an act of PvP, even if its the mechanics which make you attack allies rather than you deciding to do so'.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess I meant more like, even in D&D the 'standard 4 PC band and combats balanced around that' is not how the game has to be run. You could underpower the opposition, overpower the party, run it flat but invite people to ramp up the cheese, use combats centered around timed objectives so having someone not get stuck in the melee to run around pulling levers or sabotaging machines or stealing the artifact of power or whatever is useful, run a campaign where there's always ways to avoid combats and the pacifist character can try to chart that path, run a bodyguards-style campaign where the pacifist character is actively being hunted by non-pacifistic forces, or have more focus on magical MacGyver problem solving shenanigans and tricks & traps ruins delving, etc... So it feels there's a lot of options to run a campaign suited to a pacifist character depending on what the other players want as well. It's manageable because you can sort of plan around it and there's not likely to be push-back.

Whereas the paradox of a player with a mechanically pacifistic character (e.g. the 'roll a check to be able to fight' character) but who still wants the campaign to largely revolve around combats which they intend to try to participate in seems much more intractable to me. That's more along the lines of something like 'choosing to play a Frenzied Berserker could be considered an act of PvP, even if its the mechanics which make you attack allies rather than you deciding to do so'.

Personally, I find "I'm going to play <ill-fitting concept> and you have to warp/write the whole campaign around my tender sensibilities" (which is what that entails, most of the time) to be a questionable act in and of itself, at least without enthusiastic table support[0]. The fact that you can (if you try hard enough) adjust for it doesn't mean it isn't ill-fitting. You're demanding that the DM make significant house rules and put major effort into rebalancing the system around 3 effectives and one dead weight. It can be done, but it's a significant ask (been there, done that). Just like you can stuff a gorilla into a tux with suitable[1] tailoring. But bringing a gorilla to a wedding is not generally considered an act befitting social decorum.

Character building isn't a unilateral right. It's a shared privilege, a conversation. Everyone gets a say in what concepts make sense for that particular table. If you want to play an ill-fitting[2] character, it's your responsibility to find a table where it isn't ill-fitting. And you don't get to complain that others won't accommodate you.

[0] And if you have enthusiastic table support, it's not ill-fitting. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.
[1] Pun very much intended. Just apeing my betters.
[2] And a level 4+ character (on my scale of pacifism) is generally ill-fitting in a D&D-like. I have the same feeling about any character whose existence demands bespoke alterations in the flow of the game. You want to play a cyborg mutant ninja in a primordial fantasy game? Yeah, that's ill-fitting. You want to play an (actual, real magic using) wizard in a 1930's mob game (with no fantasy elements)? That's ill-fitting. You want to play a pacifist in a hack-and-slash game? Ill-fitting. A murder-hobo in a political game? Likely ill-fitting.

[Max_Killjoy]

Part of this comes back to the old canard (widely believed in both writing and gaming circles these days) that "flaws define the character".

So if a character's flaw is "doesn't know how to fight" or "refuses to fight", the player believes that lessening or overcoming these flaws fundamentally changes the character.

And thus, you get the character who not only can't or won't fight at the start of the campaign, but (because of the player's steadfast refusal) never learns anything about how to fight even to the degree that they're not a liability (because the other characters have to not just pick up the slack, but actively defend that character whenever there's a fight).

(Insert any character who cannot contribute to a core activity of the campaign, and a player who refuses to allow that flaw to be addressed to any degree ever.)


Another aspect comes down, again, to authorial fiction vs RPGs. Because we see useless characters as core parts of the story in authorial fiction, some gamers think that those characters are valid PCs. I refer to this as "I want to play the NPC" syndrome. For some reason, IME, it's always the same player in a group who wants to play an NPC in every campaign. The plucky kid sidekick who THINKS he's useful, the guy caught up in the adventure he never wanted, the damsel in distress, etc. Always the same player.

And that also ties back into the notion of "archetypes" (in the Hollywood / TV tropes manner of "the smart guy", "the strong guy", "the comic relief", etc), and the above idea of "if I allow my character to adapt over time to the situation they're in, and become more competent, then they're losing flaws, and thus losing what defines them".

...

E: Different subject... I see "murder hobos" mentioned, and I'd say that it ties into the overall discussion in a different way as well. The reason some players tend towards characters with no connections, no relatives, no friends, etc, is that there are GMs who enthusiastically go after those connections as vulnerabilities and narrative contrivances. Of course the villain turns out to be courting the PC's younger sister, because why in Hollywood's name wouldn't that insanely unlikely coincidence not turn out to be the case? Of course the PC's mom just happens to be in the bank when the gang the PCs are investigating robs it. Of course the BBEG's top enforcer turns out to be the guy who slaughtered one of the PC's relatives. Of course Aunt May is driving across the bridge when the escaping villain damages it to keep Spiderman from chasing him. Of course.

Ugh.

If you want PCs to have connections, stop going after those connections.

[NichG]

Personally, I find "I'm going to play <ill-fitting concept> and you have to warp/write the whole campaign around my tender sensibilities" (which is what that entails, most of the time) to be a questionable act in and of itself, at least without enthusiastic table support[0]. The fact that you can (if you try hard enough) adjust for it doesn't mean it isn't ill-fitting. You're demanding that the DM make significant house rules and put major effort into rebalancing the system around 3 effectives and one dead weight. It can be done, but it's a significant ask (been there, done that). Just like you can stuff a gorilla into a tux with suitable[1] tailoring. But bringing a gorilla to a wedding is not generally considered an act befitting social decorum.

I guess I'm saying that, as a DM, I wouldn't find it an ill-fitting concept for D&D. It'd be a relatively easily fit concept, and I wouldn't consider it as requiring any major effort, since it's well within the general sphere of 'PCs will do what they may' that I'd have to deal with anyhow. On the other hand, the alternate version of the flaw suggested (per-round roll to see if you freak out in combat) I would have much more trouble with.

[Willie the Duck]

I guess I meant more like, even in D&D the 'standard 4 PC band and combats balanced around that' is not how the game has to be run. You could underpower the opposition, overpower the party, run it flat but invite people to ramp up the cheese, use combats centered around timed objectives so having someone not get stuck in the melee to run around pulling levers or sabotaging machines or stealing the artifact of power or whatever is useful, run a campaign where there's always ways to avoid combats and the pacifist character can try to chart that path, run a bodyguards-style campaign where the pacifist character is actively being hunted by non-pacifistic forces, or have more focus on magical MacGyver problem solving shenanigans and tricks & traps ruins delving, etc... So it feels there's a lot of options to run a campaign suited to a pacifist character depending on what the other players want as well. It's manageable because you can sort of plan around it and there's not likely to be push-back.

Well sure, but in my mind, that's the same thing as my 'this isn't a problem because everyone is on board and works to make it so' qualifier. You are right, the game can work without the '4 man band' with or without a pacifist character present (and the actual prevalence of 4 PC groups is something of which I'm somewhat dubious). The game can work without combat in the first place, etc. However, again, that's crafting the gameplay around the character decisions, which pretty much makes anything work.

Whereas the paradox of a player with a mechanically pacifistic character (e.g. the 'roll a check to be able to fight' character) but who still wants the campaign to largely revolve around combats which they intend to try to participate in seems much more intractable to me.

I'd agree. If your game is based around structures of the party facing perilous* fights against challenges of a specified level of danger**, actively choosing an inherently unreliable contributor to those fights is going to be a headache to everyone else involved.
*yeah, yeah, yeah, '5e is easy-mode' or whatever. It's only easy if you only choose to engage in easy fights.
**Either because the DM sets it up that way, or the party chooses endeavors of a specific level of danger.

Personally, I find "I'm going to play <ill-fitting concept> and you have to warp/write the whole campaign around my tender sensibilities" (which is what that entails, most of the time) to be a questionable act in and of itself, at least without enthusiastic table support[0]. The fact that you can (if you try hard enough) adjust for it doesn't mean it isn't ill-fitting. You're demanding that the DM make significant house rules and put major effort into rebalancing the system around 3 effectives and one dead weight. It can be done, but it's a significant ask (been there, done that). Just like you can stuff a gorilla into a tux with suitable[1] tailoring. But bringing a gorilla to a wedding is not generally considered an act befitting social decorum.

Character building isn't a unilateral right. It's a shared privilege, a conversation. Everyone gets a say in what concepts make sense for that particular table. If you want to play an ill-fitting[2] character, it's your responsibility to find a table where it isn't ill-fitting. And you don't get to complain that others won't accommodate you.

I think you've reduced this person-who-wants-to-play-a-pacifist to such a caricature* as to be un-useful to the conversation, but otherwise you certainly have a point. You need buy-in from the rest of the group (GM included) to make any kind of Load character work. And once you have buy-in from everyone, you can make anything work, be it a useless (to game premise) character, the spotlight hog, the OP nightmare, whatever else. If everyone is on board for your madness, any madness can fit (which, if the group finds it fun, more power to them, but it really doesn't say much regarding the pitfalls of Character Flaw systems).
*'tender sensibilities?' at that point why not just go full-ham and call them a edgelord dramaqueen fop or something similar?

Part of this comes back to the old canard (widely believed in both writing and gaming circles these days) that "flaws define the character".

I'm unconvinced that this* really is all that big of a thing in 'gaming circles these days.' I think, like the old standby of 'the party rogue that steals from the party,' it's something that happens once in a gaming group (probably when everyone is a teen), and then people learn how unfun it is and move past it (perhaps a little more than once for this issue, as 'flaws-dominant character build' is a significantly more complicated arrangement than 'steals from party'). TTRPG players are, to a lessor or greater degree, not complete idiots who will ruin their own fun. People learn what does and doesn't work in-actual-play and adjust from there. Obviously gaming systems have put structures in place where the flaws define characters since just about the beginning. However, anecdotally it seems that one of the major complaints about such systems is how often players try to get the benefits thereof without actually suffering the consequences implied. Regardless of how one feels about gaming the system, that speaks to a trend to not let flaws define the character.
*or at least this to annoying or problematic levels.

Different subject... I see "murder hobos" mentioned, and I'd say that it ties into the overall discussion in a different way as well. The reason some players tend towards characters with no connections, no relatives, no friends, etc, is that there are GMs who enthusiastically go after those connections as vulnerabilities and narrative contrivances.

But hard agree here. See also the player who resists their PC going around town without their arms and/or armor (when every time they do, they are jumped), the player who only plays monks/sorcerers/game-specific-equivalents (under the DM who targets possessions), the player who will trade neigh infinite build points (or equivalent) for an uncontestable* teleport-far-away (under the DM who likes railroad-capture/'you wake up in a prison cell' scenarios).
*can't grapple or gag them to stop it, maybe even happens automatically if they fall unconscious

[NichG]

Well sure, but in my mind, that's the same thing as my 'this isn't a problem because everyone is on board and works to make it so' qualifier. You are right, the game can work without the '4 man band' with or without a pacifist character present (and the actual prevalence of 4 PC groups is something of which I'm somewhat dubious). The game can work without combat in the first place, etc. However, again, that's crafting the gameplay around the character decisions, which pretty much makes anything work.

This is probably such a strong default for me that I have trouble imagining any other way, even without particularly challenging player desires coming into it.

[Willie the Duck]

This is probably such a strong default for me that I have trouble imagining any other way, even without particularly challenging player desires coming into it.

Which part?

[NichG]

Which part?

That the gameplay and characters are continuously co-adapted to each-other. To the extent that for what I run I probably couldn't really say what the gameplay would be very far beyond the initial pitch and maybe the first half of the first session without knowing about and taking into consideration the particular characters.

So e.g. I can see how bringing a pacifist to an XCrawl tournament module might be a problem, but that's not my first or second or third thought when someone says D&D.

[BRC]

That the gameplay and characters are continuously co-adapted to each-other. To the extent that for what I run I probably couldn't really say what the gameplay would be very far beyond the initial pitch and maybe the first half of the first session without knowing about and taking into consideration the particular characters.

So e.g. I can see how bringing a pacifist to an XCrawl tournament module might be a problem, but that's not my first or second or third thought when someone says D&D.

Different systems are good at different things. You can hack and make basically any robust RPG system do anything, but at some point you're fighting against the mechanics that are laid out. The Events of the game are always going to be dictated by the characters being played, but the system is going to support those events to varying degrees.

Like, you can build a Pacifist D&D Character, but to do so you're really fighting against the game mechanics, which are mostly centered around lethal combat.
Compare to a different system, where a "Pacifist" character can simply be a character that does something that isn't fighting. In a game like HERO, it's easy to build a pacifist character.


It's the difference between, say, one player making a character who is ship captain, and so the Campaign becomes mostly nautical, vs one character making a pacifist, so the campaign becomes focused on diplomacy and intrigue. Both are DOABLE within D&D, but one option is far more supported by the system.

Most notably, if I said "We're going to be playing D&D! Make a character!" with no other details, the "Nautical campaign because somebody wanted to be a pirate" is probably going to fit your character better than the "Intrigue campaign because somebody wanted to be a pacifist".

[Tanarii]

And thus, you get the character who not only can't or won't fight at the start of the campaign, but (because of the player's steadfast refusal) never learns anything about how to fight even to the degree that they're not a liability (because the other characters have to not just pick up the slack, but actively defend that character whenever there's a fight).

(Insert any character who cannot contribute to a core activity of the campaign, and a player who refuses to allow that flaw to be addressed to any degree ever.)

Indeed. And it's the flaws taken to a degree that the character becomes a regular liability that cause the problem points.

A "pacifist" who won't themselves directly damage opponents but meaningfully contributes offensively and defensively usually isn't that, even in a combat oriented game.

A coward that runs away may well be though. Depends if the party cares if they have to save them, and if they bring additional trouble down on the party's head, or if they otherwise drain resources and rewards from the party which outweighs their overall contributions.

[Beleriphon]

Wait, wait. If we've been playing Guardians of the Galaxy for however many sessions and at some point Drax's player pulls the radio Ronin for drunken revenge card out are we really surprised by this? I'm assuming our group has gone through several adventures, and the GM has probably dangled this possibility in front of Drax's player.

In the next campaign is anybody surprised when Rocket steals valuable stuff in the first session? Or by the third campaign GMPC Thor does something loud and dangerous?

[NichG]

Different systems are good at different things. You can hack and make basically any robust RPG system do anything, but at some point you're fighting against the mechanics that are laid out. The Events of the game are always going to be dictated by the characters being played, but the system is going to support those events to varying degrees.

Like, you can build a Pacifist D&D Character, but to do so you're really fighting against the game mechanics, which are mostly centered around lethal combat.
Compare to a different system, where a "Pacifist" character can simply be a character that does something that isn't fighting. In a game like HERO, it's easy to build a pacifist character.

I have a very different view of D&D than you, and perhaps also of systems in general. Sure you can have combat in D&D, but even without a pacifist character in the group or anything like that I tend to average one combat per three sessions when I run it. The magical MacGyver elements and how they interact with the character building mini-game do a lot more mechanical heavy lifting than combat itself in my experience. Additionally, I'd say that the most important parts of a campaign aren't really about the system, though you can support them with the system in various ways.

[Cluedrew]

But in a campaign, what Drax did was so clearly and openly, "screw everyone else, screw the other characters, screw the other players, screw our chances of success, screw the whole campaign, Drax is doing 'what Drax would do' right here and right now", that in any group I've ever been in, it would have caused open tension between players.

I'll admit, I arrived at a very different answer. I can go over it again if you want, but I'm curious about how you arrived at this answer

That's kind of the thing - in this thread we ended up talking about personal preferences for how systems and groups handle character flaws.

And there are multiple parts to that question. Two in particular that I want to tease apart right now are "What flaws and resulting behaviour to we want, allow or forbid?" and "How are they actually implemented in the system?". The two seemed to getting muddled together, or maybe it was something else, with some comments seeming to criticize the implementation of a fault for what behaviour the example was encouraging. Sometimes they are tied together but there were some examples I don't think they were and I want to pull that apart.

[icefractal]

When we're talking about "the Load", are we really talking about a character whose net contribution is negative, or merely one whose contribution is significantly less than expected for their level? Because it seems like most of the examples are the latter - even an extreme pacifist who refused to help in a fight could still have adequate defenses, and in that case their presence is just a net zero - maybe even a small positive if foes waste attacks on them.

And in that case, it's only a problem for the party if the GM is sort of tailoring the foes to the party, but not precisely. Like, on the scale of tailoring:
max - every encounter is designed around being a given difficulty for these exact PCs - the Load is no problem
mid - the encounters are designed based on the PCs' level and quantity - the Load will make things tougher. Of course things may already be overly tough or easy as a baseline, since a given group of PCs is going to vary from the typical power for their level.
min - foes are what they are based on the world, not tailored at all to the PCs - the Load is no problem

You might object that they take a share of the treasure (in games where that's even an important thing). But again, it depends on whether the GM is tailoring that:
max - the PCs are kept as close to WBL as possible - the Load makes no difference
mid - foes always have standard loot for their CR, and it's largely fungible - the Load means less per-capita, and might be the difference that puts you below normal WBL
min - loot is what it is, not tailored to the PCs - the Load means less per-capita, but that amount might already be significantly below or above normal WBL, depending on what's happened in the campaign. And non-combat methods may yield more gold anyway.

So given that I tend to prefer either max-tailored or min-tailored games (more the latter, but the former has benefits for a plot-oriented game), that may explain why I haven't really seen "the Load" being a problem in practice.