People don't optimize

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the first 2 examples here of Stark and Elric, the author quickly comes up with a way for them to become functioning heroes. Sure, it's dramatic to start the story off with how they overcame their affliction. But they overcome it and spend the majority of the time fighting evil, right?

Yes, but that is immaterial- if their workarounds are ever compromised or destroyed, they're in deep trouble.

Consider Dennett's Brain in a Vat...

http://instruct.west valley.edu/lafave/WhereAmI_online.html

With a literal flip of a switch, Dennett would be unable to to control his body.

As for Ben January, he sounds like a civil war era Bruce Wayne. He's got brains, probably can take care of himself. His setback creates drama for him, but when it comes to him actually being heroic, being a black man in New Orleans doesn't exactly intefere with playing piano or doing surgery.

1) He's really a non combatant type, not really a Bruce Wayne.

2) yes, being a black man in pre-CW NOLA does interfere with both:

As a pianist, he's going to get fewer gigs, and they will either be low paying and in dangerous areas, or well paid, but extremely rare since only a few people will be true fans.

As a surgeon, he will find it difficult to find (or afford-his piano gigs are what pay the bills) supplies, and again, he will be limited by whom he can treat. He will NOT be able to work in most hospitals as anything but an orderly, if that.

I think the flaws I cringe at (that [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] seems to agree are when players make a PC and are expected to create him in a crippled way that he can't be an effective adventurer.

<edit>

It might be a bit of a strawman to assume that folks are building un-adventurable adventurers using the D&D rules. But I've seen a few PCs trotted out as "look at my realistic PC, he's got flaws and stuff" and they're barely able to function socially, physically or mechanically.

I REALLY haven't seen this. PCs with flaws tend to have ways to compensate for them.

With Stark and Elric, the flaws are present to create future situations where they are hampered by their ailment. But the majority of the time, they get to fly around and zap bad guys. Just like Superman gets nailed with kryptonite.

Again, see Dennett's BiaV. Just because a flaw has been compensated for does not mean the flaw has disappeared. Its continued existence figures into the person's daily mental calulus of what they can and cannot do.

 

[Celebrim]

Just because a flaw has been compensated for does not mean the flaw has disappeared. Its continued existence figures into the person's daily mental calulus of what they can and cannot do.

Yes, but does it actually figure into the author's calculus, or more to the point, into the player's calculus? Very often these flaws are equivalent to taking the Weak Will disadvantage in GURPS in order to buy more Intellect. The net effect is to be at least as strong willed as you would have been otherwise, only now you have more build points to spend. If the flaw is completely compensated, then it puts no real burden on the author inventing the story or the player using the character. It exists only as fluff, to be trotted out when you wish to display some ennui or angst, but which is discarded when it comes time to actually accomplish something.

Only very rarely do such things actually create a complication. Again, Elric is great example of this sort of optimization. Supposedly his health and strength is a wreck, but the black sword more than perfectly compensates. And, if he is deprived of the black sword - willingly or unwillingly - why he's such a masterful alchemist that he can brew potions that fully compensate in their place. Elric's disabilities are far more frequently mentioned than they ever have actual impact on what the character can accomplish. After some perfunctory whines about having to take his medicine, he's good to go. It might as well be all a placebo and Elric a hypochondriac for the difference it would make.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, but does it actually figure into the author's calculus, or more to the point, into the player's calculus?

The author? Definitely. The player? You'd have to ask.

I will say this- a PC Disadvantage the GM does not enforce is not a Disadvantwge. So if your player isn't concerned about his PC's flaws, it's time to look into the mirror.

Again, Elric is great example of this sort of optimization. Supposedly his health and strength is a wreck, but the black sword more than perfectly compensates. And, if he is deprived of the black sword - willingly or unwillingly - why he's such a masterful alchemist that he can brew potions that fully compensate in their place. Elric's disabilities are far more frequently mentioned than they ever have actual impact on what the character can accomplish. After some perfunctory whines about having to take his medicine, he's good to go. It might as well be all a placebo and Elric a hypochondriac for the difference it would make.

1) he can only brew his potions if he has the stuff on hand. Usually- like a D&D mage- he does. But not always. At least, not necessarily in large enough amounts so as to be fully functioning until he retrieves his demonic parasite.

2) it is clear from the character's story arc that his frailty is not a hypochondritic delusion. (While his symptoms also resemble those of an addict going through cycles of withdrawals between fixes, Moorcock is pretty clear that the frailty preceeded and was remedied by his alchemical brews.)

 

[Evenglare]

What the hell? How is this even a conversation? A character needs flaws to be interesting, it is very literally one of the first things you should learn about story creation in what... high school? Middle school? It's one of the oldest foundations of story telling. If you want to create a GOOD 3 dimensional character your character NEEDS drawbacks unless you just really really want to play a 1 dimensional character who is good at everything and doesnt have any chance of losing. Are there people who seriously think that is fun? Every good story is about a character who succeeds in spite of his drawbacks. I ... don't even believe people are even talking about this.

Having flaws isn't following an edgy crowd who want to be dark and brooding, it's about having a well designed character, be it RPG or Novelization. Also, don't bend my words saying that someone should be a complete gimp to have a good character. No one is saying that, what I am saying is that someone should have a meaningful drawback that DOES have an impact on the game/story.

Seriously I still can't believe this is a discussion.

 

[Celebrim]

What the hell? How is this even a conversation? A character needs flaws to be interesting, it is very literally one of the first things you should learn about story creation in what... high school? Middle school? It's one of the oldest foundations of story telling.

I disagree. I know what is taught about story telling, but a character doesn't need 'flaws' to be interesting. A character just needs a personality.

If you want to create a GOOD 3 dimensional character your character NEEDS drawbacks unless you just really really want to play a 1 dimensional character who is good at everything and doesnt have any chance of losing.

Did you notice your appeal to hyperbole in that? You provided only two alternatives - a character who is so superhuman as to be incapable of losing, and one that has flaws. Even without appealing to Kryptonite, Superman is capable of losing, ground that has been well and interestingly explored in graphic novels like Red Son and Superman: Peace on Earth. Neither story is possible or as revealing if Superman is a character with flaws in the usual sense of the word.

If I create a character along the lines of Buckaroo Bonzai or Doc Savage, capable in every field of human endeavor, then would you say he is flawed because he only benches 450 lb. rather than the more superhuman 4500 lb?

Did it never occur to you that a character could be interesting precisely because of the character's lack of obvious or meaningful flaws? Sometimes a character serves to provide a study in contrast, telling us who we are by providing us an example of what we are not. That doesn't make the character any less interesting. Likewise, sometimes characters serve to tell us who we inspire to be, even if we are not that. Sometimes characters are simply interesting as escapist wish fulfillment, which goes back to at least Heracles who is pretty much good at everything the Greeks admired.

Every good story is about a character who succeeds in spite of his drawbacks.

Really? I don't agree. While I love stories about underdogs succeeding against long odds, it's hard to deny that there is an appeal to the heroic as well. It's great when the underdog team wins, but we also like to root for the clear champion - that dynastic team or player that inspires awe because, at least in their field, they seem to have no flaw or equal. Sure, we may watch tennis to see Pete Sampras or Roger Federar lose, but we also watch to see them win as expected. It's heroic when an underdog hockey team wins, but mostly we tune in where we expect the favorites to win.

Every good story is about a character overcoming adversity, but not every story is about a character overcoming the hardships imposed by his own limitations. There are all sorts of conflicts in narrative, and most of them are not 'Man against Himself'. Often a story is interesting because the hero succeeds at all, when such long odds were against it that we can hardly imagine that anyone could of succeeded. In such cases, the story is about a character whose flaws don't really matter to the narrative. If the character survives being cast away at see, we can enjoy the story for the character's seemingly perfect competance without regard to whether as a dad, he might be something of a jerk, or that he's in truth a bit of a misanthrope, or even that, in another circumstance he might be drunk. For the purposes of the story, especially if it is a fictional character, he is hypercompotent.

Seriously I still can't believe this is a discussion.

It's precisely the sort of things which are common sense, where it is most worth having a discussion.

 

[Janx]

What the hell? How is this even a conversation? A character needs flaws to be interesting, it is very literally one of the first things you should learn about story creation in what... high school? Middle school? It's one of the oldest foundations of story telling. If you want to create a GOOD 3 dimensional character your character NEEDS drawbacks unless you just really really want to play a 1 dimensional character who is good at everything and doesnt have any chance of losing. Are there people who seriously think that is fun? Every good story is about a character who succeeds in spite of his drawbacks. I ... don't even believe people are even talking about this.

Celebrim's got points that I agree with, but they go a different direction than my own.

I agree with you that most writing advice is to not make your protagonist perfect and give them a flaw. I don't think anybody is against the basic concept of a protagonist should have a flaw that complicates their life or they have to overcome. That's storytelling.

what the tangent about character flaws was the extreme of giving your PC a totally debilitating flaw that makes him absolutely worthless as an adventurer, which was the job title the PC was supposed to be built for.

I don't know how often it happens, it may be a bit of a straw man, but apparently some players go overboard on thinking their PC has to have a flaw to their PC has to totally suck at doing his job in order to qualify as a "real" or dramatic character.

Buffy, Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Harry Dresden, Anita Blake, Tony Stark, MacGuyver, Colonel Jack O'Neill all have some flaw or weakness. But most of their fiction shows them quipping smartly, convincing others to help, fighting evil and winning, having friends and allies, etc.

The purpose of designing in the flaw is to eventually use it to cause the hero to stumble or have a new challenge to overcome and grow.

The failure in flaw design allegedly comes when a player goes overboard in thinking that the PC has to be terrible at their job (a fighter who sucks at fighting), socially inept and unlikable, all in the name of "better roleplaying"

I don't know how often this actually happens. it's possible. I know I have one friend who seems to like it when he rolls low on stats, and objects if you offer him a re-roll that is granted by the RAW. So he trends toward this crappist design behavior.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A low stat PC can be fun. My Ftr/Th Johnny Bones had Str15, Dex15, Int13, Con11, and Wis8 and a Cha6 (rolled in order)- and it was his flaws that really helped define him as a rash, hotheaded, risk-taking, thrillseeking thug with a nasty temper...one of the more popular PCs in the party.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think anybody is against the basic concept of a protagonist should have a flaw that complicates their life or they have to overcome. That's storytelling.

I have nothing against having a flawed protagonist; I just don't think it is the only way to go if you want to have good characters or a good story. I think that there are many examples of beloved fiction where the protagonist doesn't have obvious flaws, and I think its easy to imagine a character who - despite lacking flaws - still has to struggle through various hardships to succeed. Not giving a protagonist obvious flaws is an obvious gambit in storytelling. When you give a protagonist a flaw, you risk reducing the sympathy of your audience with the character on account of the flaw. When your protagonist is obviously flawed, you have to work harder to gain the audiences sympathies - particularly if the flaw is not one that the audience is universally going to empathize with.

That's part of why I resist descriptions of Benjamin January's black skin being a flaw. First of all, it's not a flaw. His black skin is part of the conflict with society he must overcome. It's the context of his adversity, which will set up the narrative. Indeed, to the modern reader, his black skin serves to increase our sympathy for him. He'd be more flawed as a member of the white community whose social conditions we now detest, and the author would then have to work hard to regain our sympathy by showing the character in a positive light. Benjamin January's paragon like skills - gifted physician, genius intelligence, charisma, savoire-faire, excellent piano player - are like those of Lord Peter Whimsey, the means by which he will overcome adversity and triumph (to our pleasure). But Benjamin January is no more flawed because he is black in 19th century New Orleans, than a shipwrecked man is flawed because he finds himself in harsh environment or the crew of Apollo XIII is flawed because their command capsule explodes.

Being without obvious flaws in no way means our protagonist will have it easy. If a protagonist is heavily outnumbered or surprised by the enemy, we don't count that as a reader as a flaw. Being overcome by odds we'd expect no one to overcome doesn't create a flaw. Indeed, the hero is expected to triumph anyway. Flaws are when the hero has difficulties of their own making, or faces challenges as a result of their own disabilities.

I don't know how often it happens, it may be a bit of a straw man, but apparently some players go overboard on thinking their PC has to have a flaw to their PC has to totally suck at doing his job in order to qualify as a "real" or dramatic character.

A lot of authors are like this as well, taking the notion that a character has to have a flaw to be well-rounded, and presenting the reader with a protagonist that is a consumate self-centered jerk with few or no redeeming features. Personally, I can't stand books of this sort. For one thing, giving a character a flaw in no way gaurantees that the character is now more well-rounded and interesting. Instead, a flawed character can be at least as much a one dimensional creation as one without obvious flaws. The supposedly more realistic character often ends up being simply a charactiture of thier flaw, or else, so well compensated in their other gifts that the flaw is too obviously just a trope drawback added out of reflexive adherence to some literary or comic book convention that says everyone has to have an Achilles heel.

The notion that protagonists need flaws - that the anti-heroic is invariably more interesting than the heroic - is a relatively new construction. It's something in vogue now, and which, in 50 more years may be dated and out of fashion. Then eventually perhaps people will tire of heros without obvious flaw, and suddenly it will be fresh and interesting again to give your hero a glaring weakness in his character.

 

[Janx]

A low stat PC can be fun. My Ftr/Th Johnny Bones had Str15, Dex15, Int13, Con11, and Wis8 and a Cha6 (rolled in order)- and it was his flaws that really helped define him as a rash, hotheaded, risk-taking, thrillseeking thug with a nasty temper...one of the more popular PCs in the party.

what do you mean low stat PC? Those are pretty decent stats.

 

[Evenglare]

I love how my "lso, don't bend my words saying that someone should be a complete gimp to have a good character. No one is saying that, what I am saying is that someone should have a meaningful drawback that DOES have an impact on the game/story."

was completely ignored. I'm out.