Hi, I'm a lifelong RPG player, and I've just fought of something crucial to your game mechanics.
Like the RPG of Heros, and also Rolemaster Classical (1rst companion mainly), you should make a book about characters having advantages points for bonus, while having also disadvantages,, making ultra uniqueness for each persos ; extra bonus to stats, or attacks, spells, skills, playing perks, and the same for disadvantages like phobias, limitations, etc. A little like the sorcerer bloodline, but for ALL persos, get it?
It could also have like, destinies, god contact, special dreams, everything to further the deepness of everyone. It could be to have near persons that are to your charge (like aunt May in Spiderman!!) Or you could be the vassal of a powerfull entity (dragon, demon, or even celestial heaven entity like Deva!!!!!) It's infinite all the possibility (a little like the mermaid Azlan peoples and Aboleth!!)
It could all be selected by players, or by dice rolls......
By extending further this branch, each one persos'll fell even more heroics, unique, funny-playable and attaching!!!!!
People will take smallest penalty and game it for the greatest advantage.
Games like 3:16, Annalise, or Becoming Heroes get at the things you are wanting with fewer of the "Gaming the system" issues something like PF would have. To see a prime example of this being out of control see Old World of Darkness flaws.
People will take smallest penalty and game it for the greatest advantage.
I think it depend upon Power Gamers and others will differs ! You could like give 1, 2 or 3 points for flaws wo put in perks, you see?
Games like 3:16, Annalise, or Becoming Heroes get at the things you are wanting with fewer of the "Gaming the system" issues something like PF would have. To see a prime example of this being out of control see Old World of Darkness flaws.
You think it would get out of control?
Games like 3:16, Annalise, or Becoming Heroes get at the things you are wanting with fewer of the "Gaming the system" issues something like PF would have. To see a prime example of this being out of control see Old World of Darkness flaws.You think it would get out of control?
Yes you seem to underestimate the number of optomizers/ powergamers/minmaxers etc out there. I wish I shared your optimism. It's generally not great as at worst its free points and at best it's additional layers of bookkeeping for the GM to have to deal with and make sure to use. The second is generally what leads to the first.
This is why I suggested games that more explicitly make you have disadvantages villianous traits, etc and a mechanical reason to use them yourself rather than try and avoid those situations or hope the GM doesn't ask to see if any one has a phobia: ladybugs at the annual ladybug festival of the Village of Hom where the goddess manifested as a giant ladybug to save the town.
In my opinion, the only disadvantage system that doesn't suck is nWoD. And that's because you only get to benefit from your disadvantage after it has actually disadvantaged you (you get extra XP in sessions where your flaw has put you at an actual, tangible disadvantage.)
The rest is usually "Let's see what I can get that will give me extra points without really being a disadvantage".
Those who won't play the system will usually have no problem in assigning flaws to their characters without getting a mechanical benefit for it. They call it "roleplaying".
People will take smallest penalty and game it for the greatest advantage.I think it depend upon Power Gamers and others will differs ! You could like give 1, 2 or 3 points for flaws wo put in perks, you see?
Flaws as in the features that give extra feats for next to no penalty? Yeah they are the right way to go. The thing is most players don't intentionally gimp their characters with weaknesses. They either look to cover it themselves or find someone else to help cover it. That's just part of being an effective adventuring party. Some people aren't cut out to be adventurers. You call it power gaming I call it realistic.
Well, the Rolemaster's system was pretty good, in the Companion 1. Make really you see, there's good way to put it to everyone's benefit (including roleplaying + game mechanic!!)
I mean, it's really real disadvantages, that are very sure to be adventures oriented, and concretly applicable. So are the advantages.
I think it would be easy to put it to good use.
Like, instead of making you choose the "better" disadvatages, just roll on a chart, and you'll get what you'll get....
with a good application, it's pretty easy to find a good system. Simple things, or with a background, or advantages + disadvantages; a paragraph per items or just a word with the stuff... Destinies, histories, etc.......
I'm sure it could be great with good application (and all you doleances taken into account) ;)
I remember the AD&D Players Option books. I'd prefer to avoid that kind of thing from Paizo.
The archetypes already do what you're talking about, OP. Dropping one ability you don't see as character relevant and picking up something thematically appropriate is exactly what they do. Adding a few more of them, or some alternate features that can be plugged into any version of the class to replace a core ability (Controlled Rage comes to mind)would be fine, but reducing it down to "Trade anti-feats for more feats" is a terrible idea.
Flaws work best when it's something like in Reign or how Aspects work in FATE based games.
In D20, flaws almost never work because they're too tightly wound into the minutia of the mechanics.
Well, seems like everyone's against ;)
I am pro-flaws! But anti-advantage... I think that this is something you talk to your Dm about and just try to work in to the story.
I am currently playing a Monk of the sacred Mountain/sorcerer who is deathly afraid of heights. When ever I get above 10 ft I receive the shaken condition... More than 20 and I have to make a "courage" check or I take it to a -4. Just Imagine how hard it is for me to climb a freaking wall. Why did I do this? I have no idea honestly, it just seemed to make sense for this particular character.
|
I don't mind the idea that you want to play a character that is well developed and has some flaws, but I don't see a reason why that then should turn into a game mechanic that most likely would give players something for having that flaw.
Make a flawed character and having fun playing it should be more then reward enough.
3.5's flaws thing was completely unbalanced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make a flawed character and having fun playing it should be more then reward enough.
This.
Luke Crane, the author of Burning Wheel has a great saying that I try to convince people of. he says "Disadvantages are advantages."
The reason for this is that they make the play experience more interesting and give your character more screen time. Honestly, there's not much more a gamer can ask for.
If you want to build a flawed character, that's awesome. Just do it. Apply your own penalties, however much you think they should be for the conditions. Roleplay how they are overcome, or occasionally ignore them for awesome dramatic punch ("I am not left handed...")
But don't expect a GM to give you an extra cookie for doing something that should already make the game more fun for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few games out there with substantial advantage/disadvantage systems out there (Hero System and GURPS come most readily to mind). And GM oversight is crucial to character generation in both games in order to maintain reasonable balance.
Advantage/disadvantage/point buy systems of character building tend to develop into ways for players to eke out as many benefits for themselves as they can muster while generating build points out of the disadvantages that will hurt them least (or not at all). Knights of the Dinner Table has lampooned this tendency fairly often.
I am reasonably fond of both Champions (Hero) and GURPS, but I've lost some of my taste for picking up disadvantages in order to get the build points I need to make my character. It gets a little tedious seeing characters with a bunch of minor psychological limitations, dependent NPCs who don't appear often, pointless hunted statuses, and oddball vulnerabilities in order to pay for their powers. I think Mutants and Masterminds has developed into a game that handles this better - powers may be cheapened by limiting them, but you get a larger pool of points relative to power costs to build with and instead of disadvantages giving you points, you list a few complications. If the GM uses one, you get a hero point you can use to modify action in the game. In other words, you only get a benefit if the complication actually applies to the game in play.
Tome of Secrets from Adamant Entertainment has something you might wish to check out. Flaws in this case all have mechanical effects (read: penalties) that will effects a character's options in reasonable fashions.
Instead of feats it grants 4 skill points per flaw (with the DM determining how many flaws that can be taken), the rules make it so you cant exceed your normal maximum skill rank so this option doesn’t really make characters more powerful...so much as a little more versatile and with broader options for skill use.
To clarify its a one-time deal, you take a flaw and get 4 skill points, it doesn’t scale or increase with level or any of that so its great for the early levels when you want a character with a lot of skills at their disposal (low-skill point character benefit the most, but some wont see that as a bad thing).
Your Mileage May Vary However.