Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 1160638" data-attributes="member: 5100">Well, I'm programming in the other window, so English language definitions may not be my forte right now.  I reserve the right to fine tune later. "Worth the effort" is a very subjective statement.  What I essentially mean is whether adding the M/F mechanic would be value-added to the majority of consumers.  If most people are ambivalent to it, then it really shouldn't be in the core rules.  If the mechanic doesn't impact game play in any significant fashion, then it's probably a waste of time.  And, especially, if using M/F requires more work than it adds enjoyment to the game, it isn't worth it. By "work", I'm referring to several things, including the "amnesia" issue.  In any system that has M/F in place, the player can build a "stronger" character through judicious aquisition of flaws.  In Hero, for example, a character with 50 points in flaws is always, always, always stronger in the long run than a character with no real noteworthy weaknesses.  If you don't fill your alotment of flaws, then you will have a sub-optimal character.  The longer you play the system, the more you're able to pick out what the "best deals" are, and since you can't do much w/o the points you get back from flaws, even more RP-types have a hard time resisting the lure.  Especially since if they're going to play certain attitudes, anyway, they can easily justify points for Psychological Limitations. Considering that D&D derives much of its market strength and long-term playability because it is a relatively simple system, I don't want to see any sort of complex M/F mechanic that allows an experienced player to get too much of an edge over a newbie.  Sure, every system has some spread between green and veteran, if only in tactical knowledge.  Merits and Flaws, in my experience, dramatically inflate this. In D&D, as a class-based system, I have a hard time imagining what the reward would be for taking a flaw.  Would it just be a merit?  A feat?  Bonus skill points?  How does a merit differ from a feat?  If a flaw can be exchanged for either a feat or skill points, can I buy a feat with skill points or vice versa?  If not, why?  If so, why not just hand me some "character points" and be done with it (this runs afoul of my position that D&D must, above all, remain class/level based)? The most commonly thrown out method is feats (in some form) as the inverse of a flaw, so I'll look at that.  It's been acknowledged that not all feats are created equal.  At the least, some are primarily useful as a stepping stone for other feats.  How does this relate to flaws?  Are flaws created unequal?  Could someone be nearsighted in exchange for Spring Attack?  Or will we see point values assigned? If more than feats are allowed (skills, extra spell slots, whatever), it would also reduce the modularity of D&D.  Right now, the d20/OGL allows someone to just publish a new feat, skill, class, spell, or monster that is generally compatible with the rest of the system.  As soon as you create ties to other bits, you reduce that ability.  Also, it's simple (as opposed to easy) enough to create an entirely new magic system and just plug it in (Elements of Magic).  If the M/F system got to ambitious, it would really reduce that ability. So, my summary is, M/F are bad because:1) They usually add a lot of complexity to a system.2) They are hard to balance.3) They reduce modularity.4) They increase the learning curve significantly.5) They push us toward a point-based system. Hope that helps.</blockquote>

Verification