I don't get it...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Narf at 2005-05-20 18:12:35
Converted from Phorums BB System

What exactly are you trying to say? I read the article and I still don't know what your central point is.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Seroster at 2005-05-21 18:18:18
Converted from Phorums BB System

I think the author is assuming a lot of things are implied, whether from previous columns or not, I'm not sure. I think this month's column definitely could have been clearer. The author seems to be talking AROUND the point rather than discussing it directly.

What is it about advantages and disadvantages which is inherently less interesting or produces less interesting hooks than selecting a flaw or two? Is it the range of options? The fact that disadvantages often give the character compensating points does not actually change the fact that the character now has a disadvantage.

Hooks aren't flaws. Hooks can be a lot of things. In Feng Shui, stereotypical hooks - suggested by the book, and one is required for each character - can be things like "father is evil villain", "is searching for kidnapped spouse", "has been given incurable poison and is slowly dying", etc. While the latter certainly seems like a flaw, the others and many of the others mentioned by the book are story elements rather than anything intrinsic to the character - things that I think would normally be relegated to "backstory" by any game, and not covered by advantages, disadvantages, or flaws

I think it also remains to be discussed WHY giving a character a flaw will "integrate their character into the game as a whole".

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Mark Threlfall at 2005-05-22 15:21:38
Converted from Phorums BB System

I see it like this.

Advantage: Acrobatic +2 to tumble.

Disadvantage: Poor Eyesite - 2 to Spot checks

Numbers orientated. They do not give me anything to play with. Its math.

But.

Flaw: Poor anger management. PC will fly into a rage when under pressure, for example you could say that when you are not listened too you get very angry.

Now I could use this. This could come into play in quite a few situations this can change the outcome of alot of situations and create consequences that were not forseen.

Flaws are not hooks. Flaws are something that is a definate detriment to the character. Another example.

Flaw: Trusting. You trust people. You do not see unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt the darker side of someone. You are likely to trust what you see to be the truth.

Again a hero can lose a lot through being trusting.

I think that is the aim. The reason why the issue is about one of trust between the GM and Player is that sometimes the player does not want to hand over something that has this much wide a use by the GM because they fear it being abused by the GM.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Narf at 2005-05-23 00:17:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks, that helps it make more sense.

Basically, a flaw would be something to do with a characters personality.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Seroster at 2005-05-23 01:06:10
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well, if that is what Ross was trying to get at, if what he's really trying to say is that "characters who have psychological flaws are more fun to play, are easier to integrate into the game in a more sophisticated way" or somesuch, that's fine and good.

But IMO it has nothing to do with "flaws" versus "disadvantages" or whether or not the player gets points for taking a "disadvantage" or "flaw" or whatever. I mean, GURPS and Hero have psychological disadvantages. 7th Sea has explicitly psychological disadvantages, sort of "heroic" ones like Loyal (to a fault), Lecherous, etc - which are designed specifically to be hooks - yet give points back for them.

A clearer statement would have carried his point further.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Tim Gray at 2005-05-23 05:33:44
Converted from Phorums BB System

Me neither.

Well, maybe some of it. Though it comes across as "Everyone must play my way now!", and I think Ross is more reasonable than that.

I started to scratch my head at the point where he says it's bad to make characters who are good at anything. A) because it's weird and probably not the intention, and B) because playing competent characters is the major point of roleplaying for many people.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by spike at 2005-05-23 10:14:06
Converted from Phorums BB System

This approach takes a bit more work than looking at what the player selected, but it works for any disad/flaw. It also can work for advantages, though not as smoothly or effectively I think.

Poor Eyesight -2 to spot. Numbers, right? Sure, but it's also a major feature of the character in terms of defining who they are. As the player to describe how their poor vision affects their life, daily. Do they wear glasses, were they teased, how did this shape their life. Even if a player is lazy and waves off you question with a non-answer (he just ignores it is a typical response, if unrealistic) you can make assumptions based off of it. Things that aren't necessarily rule, or point based. Have an NPC insult him by calling him four eyes, Tell him he can't read a sign, or recognize someone from a distance, have him have to ask another character to help. If you know some skill or ability the player wanted, but didn't get due to points, you can bring up the idea that he might have had difficulty learning it because of some incident related to his myopia.
Of course, it probably best if you don't do this too much, probably not more than once or twice in any game, and not every game. Let the player bring up his own 'flaw' bits if he is inclined to. Sure, it may be hard to get a good storyline out of blindness, but it isn't that hard to make it a storyline complication, and the richness you add to the character might make the game more fun for everyone.
my two cents anyway