do you allow flaws?

[IcyCool]

that paladin must be flat-footed a lot... rogues take note
and personally i'd change the melee penalties to -2 to hit and -2 AC, to show they really are inept at melee combat, and make casting defensively harder/impossible.

He is, and they do. And I'm sure that when he finally gets tagged for a large amount of sneak attack damage, I'll get an earful.

 

[Scion]

Both roleplaying and gaming are necessary components of that

But of course none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

If you feel that the mechanical detriments were not large enough for the bonus given that is fine, change it.

If you feel that the person is not roleplaying well enough that is a completely seperate issue and has nothing to do with the flaw system.

Flaws can help some people roleplay better, some maybe not, but it doenst matter. It is a mechanical difference both ways and should be seen as such. Mechanical balance is needed, roleplaying considerations are a seperate issue.

 

[IcyCool]

But of course none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Odd, and I thought the topic at hand was, "do you allow flaws?" Perhaps I have the wrong thread?

A question was asked, I gave my answer. You asked a question regarding my answer, so I answered you. At what point did we get off-topic?

 

[Scion]

Odd, and I thought the topic at hand was, "do you allow flaws?" Perhaps I have the wrong thread?

A question was asked, I gave my answer. You asked a question regarding my answer, so I answered you. At what point did we get off-topic?

Wow, that is pretty hostile.

Still though, you said you have used them before but they didnt do what you wanted. But what you wanted was something different than what they actually do in the first place.

So it sounds like your issue is with one thing and you are blaming something completely different.

Definately sounds very strange to me, that is why I was asking about it.

If you want to encourage roleplaying then do it, if you want to use flaws then do it, if you 'expect' useing flaws to make people who dont roleplay to roleplay (when flaws are mechanical disadvantages for a mechanical advantage generally) then I feel that you should also 'expect' to be dissapointed by that approach.


If the mechanical disadvantages were not stringent enough then that is one thing, but to say that you wont use them because they didnt make the person roleplay? I just dont understand. That is like saying you wont allow anyone to play a rogue because last time you allowed it they didnt roleplay it properly, or you wont allow weapon focus because they didnt go out of their way to stress how much they were using their weapon.

If it was a roleplaying problem then neither the use nor disuse of them will make any progress in either direction in most cases.

 

[Drowbane]

I allow up to two flaws. The PC can start with them, or arrange to gain them near a certain lvl. Hasn't been that big of a deal, but then "Powerful" PCs don't scare me in the least. Flaws that are not RPed just need to be handled by the DM. I've had really good players though, so I don't see what the problem is. They haven't taken a flaw purely for the feat, they've always meshed with the character concept. And thus the personality of the character.

 

[Psion]

No. I think the flaw mechanic is a horrible mechanic.

There are disadvantage mechanics that work. Flaws aren't one of them.

 

[IcyCool]

Wow, that is pretty hostile.

I'm sorry you feel that way, it certainly wasn't intended to be hostile, and I'm not seeing where it could be taken that way, but *shrugs*.

Still though, you said you have used them before but they didnt do what you wanted. But what you wanted was something different than what they actually do in the first place.

So it sounds like your issue is with one thing and you are blaming something completely different.

Definately sounds very strange to me, that is why I was asking about it.

Fair enough. I do believe that I mentioned you probably wouldn't understand my reasoning. That's not intended as a slam, it may well be that I am incapable of expressing myself in a manner you understand.

To the OP, if you choose to include flaws in your game, be sure to look them over. Some folks obviously don't feel that some of the flaws are worth a feat. And like any other rule, they can be "min-maxed", "powergamed", etc.

 

[Scion]

Fair enough. I do believe that I mentioned you probably wouldn't understand my reasoning. That's not intended as a slam, it may well be that I am incapable of expressing myself in a manner you understand.

Just trying to get you to explain more about it so that I can understand where you are coming from the original arguement just struck me as asking X to do Y when it has no way of doing so.

but, so long as you are happy with your conclusions go for it

I havent ever let them into a game I have been running, but that is only because no player has ever asked for them. Good enough reason and a good enough flaw and I'd have no problem with it.

-2 to fear effects wouldnt be good enough. -4 vs fear and auto upgrade to the next worse category though I think would make it.. could make for a very interesting character as well.. everytime he is intimidated he runs away..lol

 

[Kelleris]

No. I think the flaw mechanic is a horrible mechanic.

There are disadvantage mechanics that work. Flaws aren't one of them.

Please elaborate. I'm rather fond of flaws, with appropriate DM oversight, and think they're excellent ways to fine-tune a character's mechanics to his concept.

 

[Psion]

Please elaborate. I'm rather fond of flaws, with appropriate DM oversight, and think they're excellent ways to fine-tune a character's mechanics to his concept.

Well, I was reluctant to say too much if you are sold on it. But for the benefit of those who might, like me, find flaws (and similar mechanics) dissatisfying:

To me, "with appropriate DM oversight" is a way of saying "it's a hassle for the DM."

To summarize my view on flaws in particular and classic "points for disads" style disads:

First off, flaws grant bonus feats. That's a very exploitable loophole. Many feat chains are constructed assuming you only get so many a level, and some PrC entry requirements are similar. Handing out bonus feats tends to break those feat chains and PrCs.

Okay, so lets say nothing stands out like that which bothers you.

The second issue is that many flaws fall into the two classic traps of disadvantage mechanics:

• mechanical advantages for roleplay disadvantages. I have despised this convention since 1e UA brought us Cavaliers and Barbarians. GURPS also taught me the folly of this. If a normal fighter has an attitude problem, he gets no compensation for it. Further, you can actively avoid whatever ails you in a game and skirt around it. Further still, players see them more as a point (feat) mine, and farm them for points. IME few do it to "help define their character." Most do it to min/max their character. Finally, they only really add to the game if it is convenient for the GM to address it. So you give the DM the choice of going out of his way to exploit your weakness or he attends to the game and you get off scott free.
• deficit spending - some flaws fall into this trap. The basic idea is to give you a penalty at what you weren't good at anyway. You weren't going to be needing that ability anyway. In a game like D&D, with a team environment, these types of flaws are not flaws.

This being the case, I am personally an advocate of:
1) You want bennies? You give up other bennies to get them. And
2) If you must have disads, make it a "per incident" disad like 7th sea, nWoD, vigilance, and Haven d20 use. Basically, what a disad does is provide you with additional challenges. So IMO, it should be treated like any other challenge, providing XP. If the situation doesn't come up, then you don't get off scott free and you don't pull the game off track. This is an example of the right way to do things. Flaws are so the wrong thing.