Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?

[maddman75]

Bah - quirks and flaws don't do anything but give powergamers more points. Without fail, they come up in one of two ways.

- Something the character would do anyway
- Something the player thinks is never going to come up.

I remember the traits and disadvantages too well in 2.5. Everyone was greedy and bad-tempered.

A greedy, bad tempered adventuerer! Oh heavens no!

If you want to flesh out your character with a quirk, then give him a quirk. You don't need to gain combat bonuses for doing so!

madd "hates flaw systems" man

 

[MerakSpielman]

IMHO, quirks and defects actually feed into the min-maxing playstyle more than they feed into hardcore roleplaying style.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I have to agree also that quirks and flaws are exploited just as often, and just as egregiously, as any other game element. While it works in the context of a game like HackMaster (which is parodying such stuff), for the most part, in my experience, such elements end up being used to create even more uber characters. Pendragon (and Ars Magica, to some extent) is the only game I know of that such elements actually help in the rp experience - and relatively few people play that game, or use its concepts in other games.

 

[Azlan]

IMHO, quirks and defects actually feed into the min-maxing playstyle more than they feed into hardcore roleplaying style.

Then don't give player characters benefits (such as an extra feat or extra points for buying ability scores) for taking quirks and disadvantages -- let the roleplaying of those quirks and disadvantages be the sole benefit. Tell the players they have to take a certain number of quicks and disadvantages from a list, and leave it at that.

And, yes, you can retro-fit all this to the existing D&D system. But, really, it should've been built into the system in the first place. (Especially the 3rd Edition.) Because not only do you need a comprehensive list of quirks and disadvantages, but you need rules on how to handle these in the game, for both combat and non-combat situations (depending on the quirk or disadvantage); and then all of that needs to be playtested, balanced, and refined. And that's a lot of work for something that should've been in a roleplaying system, in the first place.

 

[Shadowlord]

Come on, a short list of Traits. 2 pages is al we need. Look at Fallout, it has less than a dozen quirks which were even optional. If d20 manages to balance hundreds of feats, it shouldn't be a problem to pick a Trait at 1st level from a list of 2 pages.

 

[Desdichado]

For those of you who want more "roleplaying mechanics", I'm curious what exactly you'd like to see. In my opinion, roleplaying is helped by the fact that mechanics for it are fairly slim. The task resolution system of d20 (skill checks) is, IMO, perfectly fine for a roleplaying intensive game. I don't need any more than that. I don't need mechanics to tell me about my character's personality, his flaws, his traits, his family and social life, etc. In fact, I think having mechanics would actually stifle that to a certain extent.

If the problem is you aren't exploring that in your game, don't blame the mechanics! There's no reason to do so. The skill system is already a perfectly fine mechanic.

I do feel that some mechanics are needed, as I stated earlier here, I don't want my character to equal me in non-combat situations, but I still don't see what else you would want beyond what's already there.

Although I do admit, some more social feats would be nice...

 

[Henry]

Then don't give player characters benefits... for taking quirks and disadvantages -- let the roleplaying of those quirks and disadvantages be the only benefit. Tell the players they have to take a certain number of quicks and disadvantages from a list, and leave it at that.

...not only do you need a comprehensive list of quirks and disadvantages, but you need rules on how to handle these in the game, for both combat and non-combat situations (depending on the quirk or disadvantage); and then all of that needs to be playtested, balanced, and refined.

As a player, it would irk me that the system required me to take quirks and advantages, benefits or no. I can pick my character's own idiosyncracies, and do a better job than the rules can. The system from (Judges Guild?) called Central casting was an excellent idea for giving characters a little bit of color and background - however, it was a nightmare of totally screwy combinations of silly events that made the life of a character a daytime soap opera than a believable literary figure. As in the case of one of our players once, try enthusiastically playing a character that had divine blood, was violated by a press gang as a young child, was given the gift of prophecy by a gypsy soothsayer when orphaned, and began to glow softly as representation of that divine nature when puberty hit, and who also has a legacy item from his parents with unexplained origins. Your PC is shafted six ways to sunday before he even is set hands on by the player, and the player has little or no input on how the background affects his character.

I could see such a product as a roleplaying aid supplemental guide, where it served as nothing more than a book of ideas to give the player a jump-off point. But to be forced to pick from a system of quirks and flaws that must apply to my character is not desirable to playing the type of character I want to play.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, Henry, a random background mechanic that gave me something like that would be hilarious! Not for every campaign, but I still think that could potentially be pretty darn funny.

Your sig threw me off again -- Julio is also the male name Julius in Spanish: and in Spanish folks actually use it! I was trying to figure out who Julio was...

 

[Azlan]

As a player, it would irk me that the system required me to take quirks and advantages, benefits or no.

Does it irk you that in D&D, at least, you are required to take an alignment?

I can pick my character's own idiosyncracies, and do a better job than the rules can.

Well, la-di-da! Good for you!

I could see such a product as a roleplaying aid supplemental guide, where it served as nothing more than a book of ideas to give the player a jump-off point.

I say: Rather than a supplement, it should be built into the system. It's too integral to roleplaying to be a supplement or an afterthought.

But to be forced to pick from a system of quirks and flaws that must apply to my character is not desirable to playing the type of character I want to play.

Cripes. It wouldn't force you which quirks and disadvantages to take, it would merely require you to choose a set number of them from a list thereof, and it would provide guidelines (if not hard, fast rules) on how to employ them within the framework of the game.

(BTW: The example that you gave, getting your character's quirks and disadvantages from Central Casting, did not allow you to choose your own; rather, they were determined for you according to your dice rolls. That sucked.)

 

[ajanders]

Mechanics based Personality

(Quote)
For a roleplaying game, D&D provides scant material for defining your character's personality, other than his "alignment". With other RPGs, you can pick from lists of virtues, flaws, quirks, mental disadvantages, background options, etc., to flesh out your character, making him truly 3-dimensional and roleplay-able. But D&D doesn't have any of that built into its core rulebooks.
(End Quote)

If you absolutely must have a D20 process for creating a personality for your character, WOTC has the Hero Builder's Guidebook.
If you find that insufficiently pompous for your taste, go pick an archetype from a Storyteller system book and describe your Personality In One Capitalized Word.
If you really want to be pretentious, every comprehensive book on fiction writing has a chapter or more on character creation and representation.
Myself, I can't possibly tell you how grateful I am Wizards of the Coast felt it was unnecessary to bloat their books with White Wolf style paroxysms of joy about how they've reinvented roleplaying by making it all gloomy and angstful and Capitalized so you need to play the game with this sort of character in this sort of way unless you want to miss out on the True Roleplaying Experience.
Please excuse the structure of the last sentence.
Seriously, if you know how to categorize human personality well enough to make a good list of quirks and provide systems for them, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Stop wasting your time posting here and claim it.
If you know how to model the personalities of the human, demi-human, semi-human, and not human at all, you are probably the most valuable person on the planet, and should be preserved for a "first contact" situation.
Even Storyteller games suggest you concieve of the personality first, then choose Merits or Flaws to support aspects of the personality, not pick a neat Merit, then tweak your character to have it.
The conception of the character always drives the mechanics, not the other way around.