Merits and Flaws

Romotre · Apr 25, 2002

that is certainly a nice juicy list of flaws. also skill points makes good sense (you have a crippled leg, so you spent more time reading). with similar merits (excess pour over to skills) this could become a great addition (its already a good addition)

Humanophile · Apr 25, 2002

Sorry, I dislike these, for the following reasons:

First, if you have merits/flaws, they shoudl either have to be a zero sum system, or else added into the point buy method. Skill point alteration works differently for different classes, and is a little uninspired for first level characters, in addition to begging some minmax potential.

Second, almost all of those are social/psychological drawbacks for real game benefits. I don't think we have to say that that's a no-no.

Crothian · Apr 25, 2002

Humanophile said:
Sorry, I dislike these, for the following reasons:

First, if you have merits/flaws, they shoudl either have to be a zero sum system, or else added into the point buy method. Skill point alteration works differently for different classes, and is a little uninspired for first level characters, in addition to begging some minmax potential.

Second, almost all of those are social/psychological drawbacks for real game benefits. I don't think we have to say that that's a no-no.

As a general rule social drawbacks are bad. However, isn't it up to the DM to make these mean something? So, instead of having all social/ psychological drawbacks banned, can't we discuss them and allow the individual DM's to run their own game and enforce these?

Humanophile · Apr 25, 2002

Crothian said:
As a general rule social drawbacks are bad. However, isn't it up to the DM to make these mean something? So, instead of having all social/ psychological drawbacks banned, can't we discuss them and allow the individual DM's to run their own game and enforce these?

Going back to the the classic arguements on the issue...

If you want social/psychological drawbacks, that's fine, but I'd expect that the kind of group that could handle them as more than "cool, free points" would play tactically suboptimal PC's just for the roleplay bonus XP, or even for the sheer thrill of roleplaying. And groups/DM's that feel they can pull this off tend to be the types that can be talked into handing out bonus skill points if they fit the character, too.

So while I can't tell you how to play your game, I can think that there'd be more use for physical/game mechanical drawbacks than for roleplay ones, and to comment just in case someone who's used to the white wolf system comes across this and doesn't realize that most everyone thinks it's an unwise way to do things.

Crothian · Apr 25, 2002

Ya, I can pretty much agree with all of that. I hate bribing characters to take flaws. Most role players perfer to just come up with them themsleves.

Hmm, maybe i can start using this as a way to weed out the bad role players.

ConcreteBuddha · Apr 25, 2002

What if I looked at it as rewarding those players, instead of bribing them?

(I'm not going to use this system, I'm just curious. If someone is mature enough to handle playing a one-handed PC, is the DM justified in rewarding that player with anything above and beyond just being a good roleplayer? I tend to give XP awards for good roleplaying. Might this instance count?)

Edit: Sorry, reread your post about the giving XP awards for roleplaying. Doh...

Steven McRownt · Apr 25, 2002

I think that the system i've proposed to you is the well balanced. We spent a lot of time figurin' out the numbers, and the choice of givin' skill points is quite simple: what else?
No feat (too powerful), no higher starting money or equipment (why shold be that?), no special formulae (to make the plural of formula, you just put the s or continue to use the latin declinations?) to award PCs with Xp (because if you have chosen to have flaws, you have to play it: otherwise you will loose experience), no bonus on attributes (it is quite powerfull too, and there were the problem to have a good range, like +2,+4,+6 skill points). So -at last- we took the less unbalancing variable.

You said that givin to a fighter 6 skill points more at first level is a lot. Yes, it is, but if he survives with his flaws, in the long run, there will be no more this big difference... And big flaws usually give to a PC a hard life, most at the beginning.

Anyway, i don't want to defend to death a system that i've used for just a month. I only want to expain why we chose skill points, and if there are someone who is thinking to try a flaws/merit system, i can assure him that this one is well balanced.

Steven McRownt

Dispater · Apr 25, 2002

I preffer to leave the whole merit/flaw system to roleplaying. My characters tend to develop flaws and merits themselves, without use of a point system.

olethros · Apr 25, 2002

merits/flaws

I know of a DM that runs two PBEM 3E games that use a homebrew merits/flaws system that is similar to the WW system. One of the games is more "epic" in feel than the others so he actually allows a few free merits in addition to balanced merits and flaws. It seems to be working fine, and he's been doing it for some time now with no problems.

Just give the players the option yea or nay.

Romotre · Apr 26, 2002

I think this system does many things (well they're all sorta connected). First, it makes it easier for character to be unique. Also, it makes some non roleplaying-elitist type some drive to take skills. and i'm sure every group isn't made up all of the "elite." merits and flaws add more flavor to the game. and addiing skills IS a viable way to do it. although i'd like to see some merits with a net zero approach, the skill point method makes sense.