Merits and flaws a forked thread

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My favorite system for character flaws is being used by DC Adventures from Green Ronin. Each player is required to take at least two "complications", and will receive a hero point whenever those complications make the story, well, complicated. They only grant a bonus when they come into play, and I really appreciate the self-regulating nature of them. Combine that with the fact that hero points in that game are really freaking amazing, and you've got a recipe for a very interesting mechanic.

I think this is the way to go in any system.

I inherently distrust flaw systems where you can get direct "points" for which you can buy yourself advantages in turn. It's a system to ensure min-maxing, basically, if you do it that way, because it's easy to take flaws that don't actually hurt your character to get bonuses that will definitely help your character.

Of course, the other approach requires you have some kind of reward mechanism that works in active gameplay. Something like Hero Points, Action Points or Possibliities are basically required.

 

[arscott]

So as I see it, there are two distinct forms of disadvantage that exist in RPGs

There are intrinsic character traits that negatively affect the way he behaves, and there are external realities that impede his success. In literary theory, these would be termed flaws and handicaps respectively.

So a character who is ruled by his anger is a flawed character. A character that is near-sighted has a handicap.

Note that this is a very different terminology from what RPGs typically use, and I don't think that's a coincidence. I don't think the difference between flaws and handicaps is well understood by players, GMs, or RPG writers.

Flaws and Handicaps shape the story in different ways. Flaws help determine a character's goals, inform a character's decisions, and flavor a character's actions.

Handicaps increase the challenges faced, but only affect actions and decisions in a tactical or strategic sense, not a story-focused sense.

Handicaps are already well represented in D&D. Wizards have d4 hit dice and can't wear armor without becoming unreliable spellcasters. Fighters are slowed by their armor and have lousy will saves. In systems like GURPS or Savage Worlds where characters are point-buy, there's a place for purchasing handicaps from a list. But with the Class Archetypes of D&D, the main handicaps are already built into the classes, and purchasing handicaps is only and invitation to min-maxing.

Flaws are a trickier matter. Games with Narrative-driven mechanics like FATE can represent them pretty well using the "get a bennie when the flaw comes up" system. But in games where narrative isn't addressed in the rules, I'm not sure a mechanic for flaws is a good idea, even one that's less succeptible to min-maxing.

Because for all that flaws hamper a character in dramatic terms, they don't really penalize a character in terms of the game rules. Being hot-tempered or cautious or what have you helps determine what actions your character takes, that is, help shape the story. But helping shape the story isn't a penalty that needs to be compensated by some sort of bonus--because either the bonus is some mechanical reward that just increases your ability to overcome challenges, or it's a story-focused bonus that also is just a trait that helps shape the story.

Look at it from the point of view of several characters, one of whom is hot-headed. The party gets into an intense negotiation with a tribe of orcs, but the hot-headed character reacts angrily and the negotiations turn into combat.

That, by itself is an interesting turn for the story to take. Which is really the issue: Hot-headedness is a negative trait for the character to have as far as the game-world is concerned. But in the real-world, that hot-headedness is a positive trait--after all, it helped push the story in an interesting direction.

And if it's a positive trait, why create a system of accounting where it counts as a detriment? Making the game interesting is a reward by itself. If it deserves a reward, it shouldn't be a reward for the flaw, it should be a reward for making the game more fun (like, say, role-playing XP).

And if it's not making the game more interesting, then it shouldn't be encouraged, or even necessarily accepted.

 

[LurkAway]

Look at it from the point of view of several characters, one of whom is hot-headed. The party gets into an intense negotiation with a tribe of orcs, but the hot-headed character reacts angrily and the negotiations turn into combat.

That, by itself is an interesting turn for the story to take. Which is really the issue: Hot-headedness is a negative trait for the character to have as far as the game-world is concerned. But in the real-world, that hot-headedness is a positive trait--after all, it helped push the story in an interesting direction.

My only qualm is that the "interesting direction" could mean getting the party swarmed and killed and their bodies impaled on spikes decorating the orc lair. In the real-world, the rest of the group could cringe if their brand-new PCs meet another hot-headed fool who wants to join the party. But that's a social contract problem, not a mechanical problem... unless the system is offering Flaws that are likely to derail the story into overly interesting directions.

 

[Akaiku]

Exactly.

Flaws can be done well, but typically neither systems that include them or gms that allow their players to use them really make them as bad as the benefits are good.

In my opinion, in essence, flaw/merit tradeoff rules require both a great game and a great gm to work at all. And even then they suck. If you want to be "shaky", put your low stat in Dex and roleplay it, but don't expect me to give you a free feat for doing so.

The only real punishment in a roleplaying game is failure.
If a flaw didn't cause you to fail in some way, it's not a good tradeoff for something that contributed to your success.

If a flaw could randomly come up causing my characters to fail full stop, I'd not ever take them.

Personality flaws and quirks should, in my opinion, be left for the players to come up with and roleplay. That way they both can overcome them at their leisure and not hide behind something like "My flaw says I have to stab my allies in the back" to be a jerk.

 

[Umbran]

Flaws and Handicaps shape the story in different ways. Flaws help determine a character's goals, inform a character's decisions, and flavor a character's actions.

Handicaps increase the challenges faced, but only affect actions and decisions in a tactical or strategic sense, not a story-focused sense.

Your point on handicaps may hold for minor issues. I'm nearsighted and wear glasses. It is a minor handicap, and does not significantly impact my personality.

But, if you think being confined to a wheelchair for his entire life didn't help determine my brother's goals, inform his decisions, or flavor his actions, or otherwise significantly color his personality... you'd just be plain wrong.

Which is not to say that there's no truth in what you say - just that the lines there aren't all that stark. Significant handicaps are more than tactical issues.