Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Ideas for Improving Inspiration
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7514752" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>To me, this is a key point about these traits- they serve the player, the GM and the table by spotlighting right from day one "I want these in the play" or "in focus" and to me that follows thru to "non-mechznically".</p><p></p><p>See the player already gets to make tons of choices that they want into focus that have both mechanical and non-mechanical elements to them. These will show up in play and in focus as play progresses as a matter of course and choice.</p><p></p><p>So, that's part of why I dont see the need for mechanical payback for more story-defining or flavor-selecting choices. If one player wants to play a dwarf scarred by loss who hates orcs to the point of it affecting his in game in character choices to the point of "not the objectively best" and another wants to play a more savvy jaded one who is more sensible and calculating as a GM I am happy to have both and dont see a reason to tell the former "here, have a mechanical reward."</p><p></p><p>Some points that lead me that direction include:</p><p></p><p>1 Fun is it's own reward and bonuses for not fun suck. Really, if a player wants to play a flaw, they will and they will have fun. But if a player doesn't want to play a flaw but sees it as mechanically needed or perhaps even required by rule, that's not a plus to the table for them to put up with it anyway cuz they have to.</p><p></p><p>2 Craps gonna happen anyway. Have heard this often enough when players help with chargen. Explaining that the flaw is not really extra trouble since bad stuffs gonna happen - nature of the beast. It's just that with flaw choice it's you choosing to make the crap more personal, more focused more what you think can be fun. "They are your "so in in the ball."</p><p></p><p>3 Really, it's the team's flaw. If you are running the style of game which puts a good deal of focus on team play and group encounters, personal flaws have the tendency to often turn into or be seen in play as team flaws. One charaxter's "on the lam" does not just complicate their choices but the team choices. So, we come back again to why provide mechanical rewards to one when its "their flaw" that spices the stew this week? Now, if it's a more dispersed coterie style game where its frequent for PCs maybe to not even see each other for sessions - that changes. </p><p></p><p>These bits of experience plus my group's preference for spotlight on character not player tends to lead me to go with the "reward" for flawed characters being in game fun, in game reactions and not mechanical incentives and certainly not mandated requirements.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7514752, member: 6919838"] To me, this is a key point about these traits- they serve the player, the GM and the table by spotlighting right from day one "I want these in the play" or "in focus" and to me that follows thru to "non-mechznically". See the player already gets to make tons of choices that they want into focus that have both mechanical and non-mechanical elements to them. These will show up in play and in focus as play progresses as a matter of course and choice. So, that's part of why I dont see the need for mechanical payback for more story-defining or flavor-selecting choices. If one player wants to play a dwarf scarred by loss who hates orcs to the point of it affecting his in game in character choices to the point of "not the objectively best" and another wants to play a more savvy jaded one who is more sensible and calculating as a GM I am happy to have both and dont see a reason to tell the former "here, have a mechanical reward." Some points that lead me that direction include: 1 Fun is it's own reward and bonuses for not fun suck. Really, if a player wants to play a flaw, they will and they will have fun. But if a player doesn't want to play a flaw but sees it as mechanically needed or perhaps even required by rule, that's not a plus to the table for them to put up with it anyway cuz they have to. 2 Craps gonna happen anyway. Have heard this often enough when players help with chargen. Explaining that the flaw is not really extra trouble since bad stuffs gonna happen - nature of the beast. It's just that with flaw choice it's you choosing to make the crap more personal, more focused more what you think can be fun. "They are your "so in in the ball." 3 Really, it's the team's flaw. If you are running the style of game which puts a good deal of focus on team play and group encounters, personal flaws have the tendency to often turn into or be seen in play as team flaws. One charaxter's "on the lam" does not just complicate their choices but the team choices. So, we come back again to why provide mechanical rewards to one when its "their flaw" that spices the stew this week? Now, if it's a more dispersed coterie style game where its frequent for PCs maybe to not even see each other for sessions - that changes. These bits of experience plus my group's preference for spotlight on character not player tends to lead me to go with the "reward" for flawed characters being in game fun, in game reactions and not mechanical incentives and certainly not mandated requirements. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Ideas for Improving Inspiration
Top