Boons, flaws and traits.

[Kzach]

I'm working on a system to introduce advantages, disadvantages and quirks into 4e, ala GURPS. Basing it off the 3.x incarnation of flaws, I've come up with some preliminary ideas I'd like to throw out into the fires of creation and see what gets flung back

Traits would be a very simple system of 1 for 1. You choose two skills, one gets a +1, the other gets a -1. Add some flavour and voila! Instant trait. I figure allowing up to three of these per character is about right.

Players could just make up their own. A +1 to Endurance and -1 to Diplomacy, for instance, could be called, "Dwarven Negotiation." Allow people to be creative and imaginative with them, I figure.

Boons and flaws are similar in that they're one for another. You can choose one flaw at 1st-level and that gives you a boon. Boons are simply feats, whilst flaws are 'anti-feats'.

Basically, choose a feat and create it's polar opposite. So Improved Initiative becomes Lazy Fatarse, ie. -4 to initiative. Obviously you could only choose feats to be made into flaws that actually matter. You couldn't, for instance, turn Linguist into Dumbarse.

Thoughts?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I've seen so many various "Flaws" systems abused so often and easily that I cannot condone this course of action. Just looking at your first suggestion (Skills +1/-1) I can already tell it's a bad idea; the PC will just take a -1 on skills they'd never use anyway. Same with feats. What's a -4 to Bullrush to a guy who's never gonna use that?

 

[Nytmare]

I'd be nervous about introducing an advantage/disadvantage element. Mechanics like this always seemed to add more in the way of rabidly twinking out a character than it added depth or interesting layers to a character. Especially in a system that has (arguably) strived so hard to be balanced, and where random +1 bonuses are so hard to come by.

I'd imagine a lot of disadvantages where people were taking penalties with weapons and armor they had never been planning to use, penalties to skills they had already sacrificed, and penalties that affect the rest of the party while never even beginning to bother the person taking them.

I used to play a lot of GURPS, and all I really remember about it was that there were way too many color blind, socially retarded, people with phobias of things they were never going to realistically run into in a game, who had personal codes against shedding blood and world-conquering arch enemies breathing down their necks at first level.

In our group, we have a quality/flaw system that is totally divorced from the mechanics. Just two words that try to sum up what your good points and your bad points are that we can use as a tool to describe the reasons why your good rolls are good and your bad rolls are bad.

 

[Khuxan]

I agree with Nytmare. The best flaw systems are those that reward the player for having the character suffer. I think Fate points and Aspects from Spirit of the Century are the best place to start:

Flaw: When your flaw applies to the die roll on hand, you may ask your DM for a hero point. If he/she gives it to you, you suffer a -5 penalty to that roll. Alternately, your DM can offer you a hero point in return for blocking a course of action because of your flaw.
Example: Bob has the flaw Hot-Headed. When the necromancer's vile lieutenant approaches to parley, the DM offers Bob a hero point if he will strike her down without talk. Bob refuses the hero point, and negotiations begin. When the others have said their bit, Bob asks the DM for a hero point on his Diplomacy roll. The roll fails, and Bob has a shiny hero point to use in the ensuing brawl.

Hero Point: Spend a hero point to add +3 to your next roll.

Other systems give bonus XP when you fail a die roll because of a flaw, but given 4E tries for leveling parity I don't think that's a good idea.

 

[Kzach]

I actually have most of the same concerns. However I wanted to develop a solid framework from which to work within. It'd be nice to make that framework freely available as an option.

But let's say that players don't have the choice to make up whatever flaws/boons and traits they wish. Instead, let's say I use the above framework to come up with a bunch of my own combinations that I think would affect the character and couldn't really be avoided, or would at least limit their functionality, ie. someone might not care about a -4 to initiative but at the end of the day, they're going to act last more often than not so it's still a negative.

 

[weem]

But let's say that players don't have the choice to make up whatever flaws/boons and traits they wish. Instead, let's say I use the above framework to come up with a bunch of my own combinations that I think would affect the character and couldn't really be avoided, or would at least limit their functionality, ie. someone might not care about a -4 to initiative but at the end of the day, they're going to act last more often than not so it's still a negative.

Using your method this is probably the best way, but I have a feeling you will see a trend with the choices your players lean towards. If you come up with 20 choices, you will probably see a trend towards some specific options.

I had been contemplating the idea of having my players choose words that describe their character - 3 positive and 2 negative for example... I would keep these listed under each characters name on a little sheet in front of me and use it to reward bonus XP based on RP-ing those choices. Adding a + next to those traits that shined during a particular encounter, etc - add up the bonus RP XP at the end.

With that said, I like the Hero Point / Flaw idea a lot and will be looking into this for my game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I like the hero point/flaw type of system. It can't really be gamed by the players and it is entirely under the control of the DM, so it is not really feasible for players to abuse it. Yet it still provides a role playing hook for the player to work with. I think it would work OK with AP as well. You would probably have to limit the flaw to once per encounter, or less, but it could work. The 'reward' side of it also doesn't need to be exceptionally well defined (if you have players that trust your DMing and will go with it). It COULD be a +N given out at some point or it could be an HS or an AP or some additional XP. Between the DM and the players they can usually decide on an appropriate buff based on the situation. Of course I've been playing with pretty much the same group of players for a LONG time, lol.

 

[weem]

It COULD be a +N given out at some point or it could be an HS or an AP or some additional XP. Between the DM and the players they can usually decide on an appropriate buff based on the situation. Of course I've been playing with pretty much the same group of players for a LONG time, lol.

Yea, you could even allow spending more than one at once for greater effect - maybe 2-3 at most though... but perhaps using 2 refreshes an encounter power, or yea an action point, etc. 3 refreshes a daily, etc. Maybe you could only have 3 max, etc. There are a lot of options.

Of course, yea, if you know your group well you could leave it to them to decide how they want it to help them with your approval of course, but for consistency I would probably just come up with the options available to them (maybe with their help) and leave it at that... a menu to choose from essentially, hehe.

"I'll take an encounter refresh, with a side of +3 on my next attack."

 

[erf_beto]

If I remember correctly, the Storytelling / New World of Darkness had an interesting system: you choose a Vice and a Virtue. Whenever you act according to those, you "feel good about yourself" and recover a Willpower point or something.

I think the same could be done in D&D without much problem, and coupled with some background rules (PHB2?) achieve at least part of what you're trying to accomplish.

But I also liked the old WoD Demeanor and Nature (?) to describe a character's general personality (it beats Alignment, IMO).

And I really like Khuxan's suggestion of giving the player an option to attempt the task with a penalty, OR stay put and get a reward. This makes total sense with 4e design (ex: defender's mark).

 

[Garthanos]

I agree with Nytmare. The best flaw systems are those that reward the player for having the character suffer. I think Fate points and Aspects from Spirit of the Century are the best place to start:

Flaw: When your flaw applies to the die roll on hand, you may ask your DM for a hero point. If he/she gives it to you, you suffer a -5 penalty to that roll. Alternately, your DM can offer you a hero point in return for blocking a course of action because of your flaw.
Example: Bob has the flaw Hot-Headed. When the necromancer's vile lieutenant approaches to parley, the DM offers Bob a hero point if he will strike her down without talk. Bob refuses the hero point, and negotiations begin. When the others have said their bit, Bob asks the DM for a hero point on his Diplomacy roll. The roll fails, and Bob has a shiny hero point to use in the ensuing brawl.

Hero Point: Spend a hero point to add +3 to your next roll.

Other systems give bonus XP when you fail a die roll because of a flaw, but given 4E tries for leveling parity I don't think that's a good idea.

I will have to vote this as the most interesting and least twinkable option...
What about using Action Points instead of Hero Points? of course I also want action points to do more things but that ties them together and doesn't have one more set of points to track or forget.