Traits and Disadvanrages

[Creepshow]

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone uses a traits and disadvantage system in thier games?

Something like those presented in Skills and Powers, GURPS, Shadowrun ect...

I'm looking for something to show newer players a way to define thier characters a bit more. For example they could pick phobias for thier characters.

I like the idea of background feats presented in the Spelljammer conversion, in the latest Polyhedron mag. Though I would like a system with opposing flaws, and a system where they could get a few traits or disadvantage without burning a feat.

-Creepshow

 

[Randolpho]

I *highly* recommend against it unless you force a flaw without a reward for it.

It just doesn't make sense. Why would having a flaw somehow make you better at something else? Then the only reason people will even bother taking the flaw is to get that extra feat they want at first level, or for those few extra spell-points. It turns the game away from roleplaying and over to munchkinism.

There is only one good system for flaws: if a player wants his character to have one, let him have it. Blind PC? Sure, whatever you want. One arm? No problem.

Bonuses for taking the flaw? No way in hell.

 

[Crothian]

Have the characters come up with their own. It works better this way. It allows them to not be limited by a simple list.

 

[Crothian]

I *highly* recommend against it unless you force a flaw without a reward for it.

It just doesn't make sense. Why would having a flaw somehow make you better at something else? Then the only reason people will even bother taking the flaw is to get that extra feat they want at first level, or for those few extra spell-points. It turns the game away from roleplaying and over to munchkinism.

There is only one good system for flaws: if a player wants his character to have one, let him have it. Blind PC? Sure, whatever you want. One arm? No problem.

Bonuses for taking the flaw? No way in hell.

You don't like bribing the PCs to take flaws? It works as long as it's done to define the character. You aren't good at something because your bad at something. However, everyone is good and bad at different things. That is what the system show.

Sure, a merit and flaw system is easily abused. However, that's the DM's problem. I've seen many times were people tried to abuse the system and then the DM sticks it to them by making their flaw mean something.

 

[Randolpho]

True.

The problem with merit/flaw systems is if they affect roles or rules of any sort. Most flaw systems might grant a free feat for taking, say, near-sightedness. The feat would affect the game, and the near-sightedness wouldn't.

If, however, it were just a list of "personality quirks" that PCs are free to take, none of which have any affect on the game at all, then, I'd be in favor of it.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I like disads, but remember the old Champions rule:

If a DISADVANTAGE is not a DISADVANTAGE then it is not a DISADVANTAGE.

Have everything you chose be an immediate downside on character creation. Otherwise you open the door for abuse. Things like being "hunted" do not matter because the character goes from attacking Orcs to attacking your hunters. Things like "dependants" do not matter because the character goes from protecting the Village of Homlet to protecting his Aunt Mae. Things like phobias do not matter because what are you going to do? Kill the character with his own phobia before the adventure starts?

Additionally....

Colin McComb (the writer of The Complete Book of Bards, The Complete Book of Elves and a designer for Planescape:Torment) once noted "you can't balance power with role-play". He was talking about the Blademaster character kit that he designed. It was a crummy kit that got great abilities in exchange for being "in trouble". That's a DMs nightmare. You're basically giving the player powers AND he gets to drive the adventure.

So, yes, I like disadvantages. But they should be introduced with caution.

 

[Randolpho]

Excellent point about the Blademaster. Excellent quote too: you cannot balance power with roleplaying.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Traits and disadvantage rules were one of my favorite things about skills and powers, but i'd think they would work with 3e as is. I would also say that next time i dm i might try applying Spycrafts Background system to D&D.

 

[PenguinKing]

Have everything you chose be an immediate downside on character creation. Otherwise you open the door for abuse. Things like being "hunted" do not matter because the character goes from attacking Orcs to attacking your hunters. Things like "dependants" do not matter because the character goes from protecting the Village of Homlet to protecting his Aunt Mae. Things like phobias do not matter because what are you going to do? Kill the character with his own phobia before the adventure starts?

That's kinda the attitude that prevents these things from working in the first place. If one lets a player take a "disadvantage", one has placed the onus on oneself to make it a disadvantage - and if one bothers to make an effort instead of dismissing it as a hopeless cause from the outset, one will find that any of the above can quite easily make life just as difficult for that particular character as any game-mechanical penalty. The only difference is that the game-mechanical penalty is "built in" and requires no adjudication or effort to apply - it's the "lazy DM's" balancing element, so to speak.

(Besides, even if a "disadvantage" only ends up working out as a story element - well, isn't it worth bribing your players a little to hand you such convenient, ready-to-use plot hooks? )

- Sir Bob.

 

[Umbran]

I want to pipe in with a slightly different opinion...

I think one can balance power with role-play, but you cannot depend on a rules-set to manage the balance alone.

Having Dependants is a fine disadvantage, so long as the GM puts the character in the position of having to protect Hommlet and Aunt Mae, rather than only one. Being hunted is fine, as long as it is in addition to the normal problems within the campaign.

The point being that no rules set can strictly define how much such disadvantages are worth, as their implementation is in the hands of the GM, rather than in the dice. But then, it's the GM's job to make sure the dice rules are used properly too. If the GM doesn't double-check the player's math, they can cheat with rule-based disadvantages as easily as they can with role-based ones.

I hardly see such things as "a nightmare". They are no more a nightmare for the GM than any other part of the story. In fact, they can be a lot of fun.

The real reason why merits and disadvantages are difficult to implement in D&D in a balanced manner is simpler - it isn't a strict point-based character generation system, which can make balancing a merit/disad system hairy. You don't have an objective measure of the value of a thing, so comparing stats to skills to feats becomes troublesome.