Merits and flaws a forked thread

[Jhaelen]

Typically I dislike Merit/Flaw systems but there are games where I don't mind them, e.g. in Ars Magica. It also has the provision that flaws must be meaningful, i.e. they only allow you to pick a merit if they are likely to come up in actual play. Otherwise you're free to pick flaws but you won't get any benefits for it.

I generally prefer 'paired traits', i.e. traits that grant you an advantage in some situations but are detrimental in others. This makes it a lot easier on the game designers to properly balance them.

Being allowed to pick them freely usually just turns them into yet another min/max tool.

 

[Jhaelen]

[double-post]

 

[delericho]

I have no issue with Merits of various sorts, but tend to dislike Flaws built in to systems. IMO, there is a right way and a wrong way to do Flaws, and most games go for the wrong way.

The wrong way to do flaws is simply to allow players to choose flaws in order to get more built points to spend on various other aspects of their character. This typically sees players loading up on lots of trivial or obscure low-value Flaws, then spending the points on "big gun" bonuses. That way, they get much more benefit from their bonuses than they see problems from their weaknesses - most of which they just ignore in play anyway.

The right way to do flaws is to allow players to choose a small number of flaws for their character, don't give out additional build points. Instead, whenever the character is directly hindered by their flaws, the player is then able to claim extra XP for the session, or Drama Points, or Action Points, or whatever. Basically, incentivise the player to police his own Flaws rather than expecting the already-overworked DM to do so.

 

[Desdichado]

I have no issue with Merits of various sorts, but tend to dislike Flaws built in to systems. IMO, there is a right way and a wrong way to do Flaws, and most games go for the wrong way.

I'm distrustful of the whole concept of flaws for exactly this reason, despite the fact that I think they could and should be a good addition to the game.

The wrong way to do flaws is simply to allow players to choose flaws in order to get more built points to spend on various other aspects of their character. This typically sees players loading up on lots of trivial or obscure low-value Flaws, then spending the points on "big gun" bonuses. That way, they get much more benefit from their bonuses than they see problems from their weaknesses - most of which they just ignore in play anyway.

Yep, that's what I've mostly seen. Even players who aren't really powergamers, I find, tend to gravitate almost subconsciously into this mindset when the system's right there begging to be used.

The right way to do flaws is to allow players to choose a small number of flaws for their character, don't give out additional build points. Instead, whenever the character is directly hindered by their flaws, the player is then able to claim extra XP for the session, or Drama Points, or Action Points, or whatever. Basically, incentivise the player to police his own Flaws rather than expecting the already-overworked DM to do so.

The other right way--although this requires a group that's good at roleplaying and values that commodity perhaps over other aspects of the game--is to provide flaws that don't really provide any benefit at all, but which can be used to help flesh out a character and make him or her interesting. In a sense, you could say that there's no reason to provide a system for this; players can just roleplay their characters with whatever non-mechanical personality flaws that they want. In reality, I've found that having a list to pick from is more likely to encourage that they are used than simply opening it up to "picking whatever you like" without any guidance or suggestions whatsoever.

 

[Umbran]

In a sense, you could say that there's no reason to provide a system for this; players can just roleplay their characters with whatever non-mechanical personality flaws that they want. In reality, I've found that having a list to pick from is more likely to encourage that they are used than simply opening it up to "picking whatever you like" without any guidance or suggestions whatsoever.

Well, a list of flaws that have no defined mechanical impact isn't what I'd call a "system".

But, if the official line is "give the players a bennie when they flaw comes into play", it is easy to simply drop the bennies and let them play the flaws when they like.

In Classic Deadlands, some of the flaws have direct mechanical impact (like, say, only having one arm). Others are largely roleplay (like phobias). In general, when a flaw is a real issue, the GM is supposed to give the player a Fate Chip.

I have found, however, that my game has a quirk of economy. The players draw three chips at the start of each session. But, I'm running short weekday sessions, perhaps half as long as the rules assume. If I handed out chips for flaws the way they say, the players would be swimming in Fate.

I asked the group whether they wanted me to either cut back on the session-start draw, or cut back on handing out chips for roleplaying flaws. They chose the latter, and continue to play themselves as they were. So, what you're saying is true - you don't *need* to reward some folks.

However, even though my group doesn't need it, I think the bog-standard ought to be to actively reward the type of play you'd like to see in the game. It is easier for the GM to cut back rewards than to build a reward system.

 

[the Jester]

The first problem with Flaws is that they either make the GM look like the 'bad guy' when the flaws come into play (and likely require more work from the GM) or they wind up being free character points.

The second is they make point buy characters even MORE lopsided than they often already are. While I'm not that big on rigid class systems, at least d20 melee characters can't sacrifice saving throw bonuses to get more BAB [usually]. In Point buy you often can do similar things and then with a flaw you can worsen your defenses for even more attacking potential.

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.

 

[Argyle King]

I think the thing to remember about flaws/disadvantages is that they are called flaws/disadvantages for a reason. When I GM games which use such systems, I don't feel like a bad guy for making a flaw play as a flaw. If a player doesn't want to be hindered by a flaw, they shouldn't take it.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think the thing to remember about flaws/disadvantages is that they are called flaws/disadvantages for a reason. When I GM games which use such systems, I don't feel like a bad guy for making a flaw play as a flaw. If a player doesn't want to be hindered by a flaw, they shouldn't take it.

This plus a lot. The fact that some players may whine that the DMing a big old meenie for using their flaws against them is not a rule issue but a whiny player issue. Don't take the flaw if you don't want to deal with the consequence.

While I do like the idea of using flaws to get beenies in game I don't think they have to all be that way.

First of I don't think they should be equal you take this flaw you get this equal benefit especially if it is an awesome benefit. In Shadowrun and I am talking 2E or 3E not the new one which I have never played it does not work quite that way. Edges cost more than most flaws so you usually need more flaws to get the edge.

I am not sure how it would work in DnD Shadowrun and Hero system which both use flaws/disadvantages are not level based systems. Being able to be a crack shot in Shadowrun does not quite equal getting +2 to your BAB.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, but, we're seeing in another thread that my stats should never limit my role playing. That I should be free to roleplay whatever I want, regardless of my stats. After all, having a low Cha should never, ever limit my roleplay, so, why should having a low Dex do the same?

Thread in question: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...hould-charismatic-players-have-advantage.html

 

[Desdichado]

Well, a list of flaws that have no defined mechanical impact isn't what I'd call a "system".

I didn't call it a system either. I called it a list to have something to start with so players who enjoy roleplaying flawed characters can sink their teeth into some suggestions on how to flaw up their characters. Like I said, this works for certain groups and certain players, but not others.

Not everything needs to be systematized.