Why the D20 system has no merits and flaws system ?

[Cybern]

I don't get it, we have rules about AOO, but not about character quirks, personal problems and n'importe quoi d'autre.

Merits and Flaws are a good way to flesh out characters without unbalancing the game too much. Is it because DnD isn't a character development game, but a Wargame with some talking?

Or is it that they thought that Skills and Feats were enough? I'm not talking about 3rd-party m/f system, but why no official (D20) one?

 

[Psion]

I don't get it, we have rules about AOO, but not about character quirks, personal problems and n'importe quoi d'autre.

Merits and Flaws are a good way to flesh out characters without unbalancing the game too much. Is it because DnD isn't a character development game, but a Wargame with some talking?[/qutoe]

No, I don't think so.

First off, aren't feats merits?

Second, I really don't think omitting flaws was a major omission. IME, games that use them are prone to trouble, as players tend to merely use them as soureces of additional points. Players who really make good use of them will, IME, do so without lots of extra rewards.

Or is it that they thought that Skills and Feats were enough? I'm not talking about 3rd-party m/f system, but why no official (D20) one?

Why does it have to be official? Isn't a major part of the point/promise of the d20 secondary market to add things to the system to suit particular people's tastes. (Incidentally, Dynasties & Demagogues has a pretty good system to this end.)

 

[Faraer]

The designers thought the new D&D was complicated enough, and different enough from the old D&D already? They saw the min/maxing tendencies in systems which compensate characters for 'disadvantages' (which aren't actually disadvantages since make the character more interesting)?

 

[Crothian]

The module World of Whitethorn 1A: The Hamlet of Thumble has some rules for this sort of thing.

 

[Cybern]

I know that Feats can emulate Merits, but you have so few feats that you just can't take a flavor feat and have that feat you need to survive (I'm talking character creation here).

I know flaws are unbalancing if let unchecked, but I guess rolled stats are worse. If you want to play a undead-slaying shy cleric, the DM is gonna say to get a low Cha score. Then this shy cleric isn't good at turning undead anymore. So you add him a feat to turn more undeads... even though your rolls will get crappy.

Social merits and flaws are a blast in our campaign, such as Mafia ties or Snitch or Confused etc.

In Heavy Gear they explain that flaws are a way to reward players for good focused roleplay. DnD doesn't even have "rewards for good roleplay".

 

[Dyir]

From what I've read, Monte Cook said that they left out the flaws system because it could lead to players way over min/maxing their characters. For a while, I didn't really understand this line of thinking and made my own Flaws system (take 1 flaw, gain 1 feat). And then I saw it in practice...

After the experience of watching a few players take flaws merely to power up their characters way beyond anything that I was prepared to handle, I scrapped that system. I realized that the flaws generally appeared far less frequently than the power-ups they rewarded (how often can you force a character to encounter their worst fear before it becomes redundant?) and that created the problems.

If I were going to create a new flaws system, the benefit gained from the flaw would be just low enough that the only players that would take them would be those that really wanted them. A player that insists that their character is afraid of spiders should take the flaw for that reason, and then get a little boost as a result. I do not want my players taking flaws to "power-up" any longer.

 

[D'karr]

[Snip]
Social merits and flaws are a blast in our campaign, such as Mafia ties or Snitch or Confused etc.

And what game mechanics effects do these have? In DnD there is no need for them. As an example the Mafia Ties flaw can be explained as part of character background and be a character hook.

In Heavy Gear they explain that flaws are a way to reward players for good focused roleplay. DnD doesn't even have "rewards for good roleplay".

In DnD the rewards are called Experience Points, which by the way the DM can award at his discretion for "good roleplay".

Most DM's don't really need additional game mechanics to handle most of the situations pertinent to merits/flaws.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Why the D20 system has no merits and flaws system ?

I know flaws are unbalancing if let unchecked, but I guess rolled stats are worse. If you want to play a undead-slaying shy cleric, the DM is gonna say to get a low Cha score. Then this shy cleric isn't good at turning undead anymore. So you add him a feat to turn more undeads... even though your rolls will get crappy.

Who said that a shy cleric has to have a low charisma? It seems odd, true, but I can conceive a character who is "reserved" or "knows when not to speak" as opposed to merely introverted.

Social merits and flaws are a blast in our campaign, such as Mafia ties or Snitch or Confused etc.

Why do these require mechanical support. These are character traits AFAIAC, and don't require gimmes in order to work. IME, the gimmes just mean they make it to the hands of players who aren't ready for it.

DnD doesn't even have "rewards for good roleplay".

If you look in your DMG, you will find you are wrong. It's an option, but you will find that xp award for RP are discussed.

 

[alsih2o]

Re: Re: Re: Why the D20 system has no merits and flaws system ?

Who said that a shy cleric has to have a low charisma? It seems odd, true, but I can conceive a character who is "reserved" or "knows when not to speak" as opposed to merely introverted.

none of the descriptors you used screams "shy" to me

"knows when not to speak" especially reeks of high charisma, and not shyness

 

[Cybern]

I agree that more mechanics means more problems, but we mostly never have powerup characters because of flaws, since the DM checks and approve all characters.

I think 1 flaw/1 feat is way too powerful.

Let's say that you want to play a princess. In the name of Game Balance, your sorceress princess won't start rich, right? But what if you want to play a rich princess, but don't mind having the "too popular" flaw?

As for the Good Rolplaying XP Awards, it's optionnal in the DMG, and the proposed number of XP given is ridiculously low.

If Flaws gave skill points, and Merits costed(sp?) some, the problem would'nt be as bad? Merits should not be as powerful as feats, IMHO.

I know that the OGL makes it possible to invent one, but they'd get messy, and what about playtesting? Is that not why they put all the +2/+2 feats in the PHB in 3.5?

I also know that good roleplayers can get without