As a GM, I prefer to keep the rules of the game as simple as possible and do as much as possible with fluff instead of mechanical customization options. Not only is it less overwhelming for new players and those who never really read the whole rulebooks. I think it also helps averting the tendency to see the game as a big pile of mathmatical optimization problems rather than a story in which actual people with complex personalties are trying to do what's right and best.
If everything you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
And if you have a huge number of abilities on your character sheet, you start to solve every problem by finding the right mechanic or rule. The shorter the character sheet, the more imaginative players get and think of the game as a story, not a chess game.
Traits seem to be somehow on the border between the two approaches. On the one hand, they seem to be meant to be reminders for the players of certain strength and weaknesses they came up when planning their characters personalty and backstory, which I think is great.
But in practice, they seem to be mostly used as a way to trim some numbers that aren't really needed in combat and get additional bonuses to the primary abilities for maximal statistical efficiency. Which I really don't need in my games.
What's people's experience with traits and these situations?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am completely against traits. I don't use them at my table, and while it's not enough to get me to refuse to play in a game, if given the option, I will play in another.
Whether or not a character was bullied as a kid or was raised into a certain religion should have no bearing on the crunch. If does does, players are going to choose them or not choose them based on how well it helps their character's effectiveness. It either restricts a player's backstory (don't have the bullied trait? sorry you weren't bullied as a kid), or it's a meaningless tack-on to make PCs slightly more powerful (you don't have the bulleid trait? That's okay it can still be in your backstory). in a game already skewed to their advantage.
We made classes, and races, and feats. Now traits. Where does it end? My character has daddy issues, +1 to to saving throws against father figures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They help to make a diverse character. I allow my players to change the background/fluff of the trait. As an example I had a barbarian with spellcrafting as a class skill. It does have mechanical advantages, but it also allows unusual backgrounds to have some mechanical footing, which is not a bad thing.
Having a background that says you can do ___, but not being able to do it does not really make a lot of sense to me.
The shorter the character sheet, the more imaginative players get and think of the game as a story..
This is true for you, but it is not a universal truth. It allows some of us, as I demonstrated to not play the typical _____.
I kind of like them, but only use them if the players want to.
When they do, I feel generous enough to give three instead of just two.
Min/Maxing is always going to be an issue with some players, and rarely an issue with others. It just depends on the play styles of your players. I've had entire groups where they would never try to talk to anyone because nobody had a "great" diplomacy score and they just assumed (wrongly) that if they didn't have a great score in it that they wouldn't be able to do it. Other players will rarely train skills that are not class skills because they see it as inefficient. "I'll never be great at Bluff because I don't get that +3"
So, for me I totally see where people who dislike traits come from. A lot of players will naturally gravitate toward those traits that maximize their builds. My personal take is that traits are not that powerful as to make them game breaking, which means that its fine when they are in, but also not a big deal when they are not.
If I do play a character in a campaign that uses traits, picking the traits will be the last thing I do, after my backstory even, and then I'll make sure the trait actually fits into my backstory.
I kinda like traits, though I also see the problems with them. Not to mention the immense untapped potential.
As a carrot to get mechanics-oriented players to have at least some kind of background, it's kinda cool. As a way to have someone's background have a small impact on his character, it's also kinda cool. But it sucks when someone changes his cool background in order to get the trait bonus he wants. Better would be if you allowed players to make up their own traits, but then the mechanics-oriented players ignore the fluff part and pick just the bonus.
In a way, the way systems like Fate and Cortex+ handle this works better.
I also agree that Pathfinder (and 3.5) have way too many character options. It's a seriously intimidating system for the inexperienced player. In that respect, D&D Next looks very promising: fairly simple classes with sensible defaults, you can swap your theme/specialty (which is mostly mechanics) for another if you want, and you pick a Background, which provides fluff and skills. If a Locksmith background doesn't already exist, it'd be easy to create one.
As for the missed opportunity in traits: Campaign traits provide a reason for a character to start in a campaign, but they also sound like they might be an additional hook for events in the campaign. In Kingmaker, it'd be nice if being a Bastard or belonging to some noble house actually mattered. This doesn't happen as far as I know, but wouldn't it be cool if campaigns said stuff like: if a PC has trait X, this happens, or NPC Y reacts differently?
I really like traits, tiny bonuses from them really don't break the game. Players now have options to gain benefits from crafting a background story that they would otherwise have to level dip for or ask the DM for favors. I think overall more options for the player are a good thing, especially when those options don't break things. Want perception as a class skill so the game is a little easier? Sure, it means I have to fake less as the DM because you will fail checks less often. Fearing min maxing is the wrong mind set to go into this game with, and it leads to stormwind real quick when you start banning things on the basis that it's OP. Players lose faith in a DM who fears their power level so much that entire dimensions of the game get ignored because the DM can't handle it. At least that's my take.
|
I've actually considered adding another 'layer' of traits...ones that really go into the background of the character. Some players will actually explore the background of their character, and play a more 'living' character...others need more of boost in this direction, having no idea how to flesh out an interesting character...I've been thinking it might be possible to use traits to assist in that.
|
|
I've actually considered adding another 'layer' of traits...ones that really go into the background of the character. Some players will actually explore the background of their character, and play a more 'living' character...others need more of boost in this direction, having no idea how to flesh out an interesting character...I've been thinking it might be possible to use traits to assist in that.
You should check the background generator in Ultimate Campaign. It directly links background events and traits you can take.
I see it as a great tool for GMs who want PC's traits to make sense.
|
|
I've actually considered adding another 'layer' of traits...ones that really go into the background of the character. Some players will actually explore the background of their character, and play a more 'living' character...others need more of boost in this direction, having no idea how to flesh out an interesting character...I've been thinking it might be possible to use traits to assist in that.You should check the background generator in Ultimate Campaign. It directly links background events and traits you can take.
I see it as a great tool for GMs who want PC's traits to make sense.
Sweet.
I knew I wanted that book. :)
Potentially traits could have similar effects as Allegiances. Which is a sub-system that has been criminally neglected since it's creation for d20 modern. I think Conan d20 was the only game to really pick them up.
With Allegiances, you write down on your character sheet what groups or ideologies the character identifies with and is willing to take risks for. It's a much more interesting system than alignment, which simply tells you if you help people or abuse them. But alignment does not help at all with being a guideline what side to pick when there is no clear good and evil.
When in doubt, players will go to their character sheet to see if there is anything helpful they might use. And if they can see it written down there that their character is commited to his lord and his local temple, it's a very powerful reminder of what your original concept was when you created the character. The actual mechanical impact of having an allegiance is barely worth mentioning, but having it written down on the character sheet as a defining feature of the character makes it much more highlighted than if you mention it in one sentence at character creation and completely forget about it after the first session.
And I think this is where traits also have lots of potential. A fighter might always be a fighter, but I think having the Trait "Born into the Warrior Class" can be a very strong reminder to the player, that the character is not just a fighter, but can actually demand respect from commoners, make pleas to other warriors to stand up for what their birth demands of them, and demand of both reluctant allies and even enemies that they recognize him as an equal.
This is what I see as the greatest potential of having traits in the game. When picking a trait, a player should think about how it makes the character a more interesting person, not about how it would benefit him in the game. But on the other hand, the traits still would have to have some meaningfull effect to make it worth bothering with them at all.
They help to make a diverse character. I allow my players to change the background/fluff of the trait. As an example I had a barbarian with spellcrafting as a class skill. It does have mechanical advantages, but it also allows unusual backgrounds to have some mechanical footing, which is not a bad thing.
Having a background that says you can do ___, but not being able to do it does not really make a lot of sense to me.
The shorter the character sheet, the more imaginative players get and think of the game as a story..This is true for you, but it is not a universal truth. It allows some of us, as I demonstrated to not play the typical _____.
In what case does not having traits not allow a certain character to do X actvity?
If they want to be decent at something outside their class, they can take relevant feats, multiclass, or distribute their skill points accordingly. It can be done.
Adding traits just increases the power level (albeit, VERY minimally) and makes things that, IMO, should remain pure fluff into mechanical advantages.
Any restrictions on a player's backstory due to traits, is made up.
They don't exist.
Of course a player can always choose background details that aren't represented by traits, sure. But a player that wants to be as good as everyone else at the table may feel pulled to include certain things in his backstory he wouldn't otherwise that the traits are based on.
When you get down to it, this is giving players an extra feat at 1st level for the sake of doing it, not because they need it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you get down to it, this is giving players an extra feat at 1st level for the sake of doing it, not because they need it.
Right, but it allows for more rounded characters (two half-feats give more variety than a full feat) and can ground the character in the campaign's background/mood (Campaign traits in APs).
The concept of traits is awesome, but Paizo went the wrong way with them. Rather than having some traits that are useless and others that are feat-level power, it's a pretty simple thing to say, "Your character was X in the past and this means she's better at Y." Paizo went all crazy and tried to make it too specific. Just work with your DM about what kinds of things make sense for your character and you're set.
I think it's cool that where you've been and what you've done impact who you are now.
What trait is "feat power level"?
In what case does not having traits not allow a certain character to do X actvity?
If I write up my barbarian as someone how is accomplished in the knowledge of demons and I don't have knowledge(planes) then I can still put ranks in it, but it is not the same as having it for a class skill. Just to be clear, I was referring to doing it effectively without having to multiclass or take a feat. If he is supposed to be good at knowing what spells someone is casting having a trait that gives spellcraft also fits. Yeah I can put points into them without the trait, but I will most likely be behind the curveball a lot more unless I take skill focus(X).
If they want to be decent at something outside their class, they can take relevant feats, multiclass, or distribute their skill points accordingly. It can be done.
And my point is proven.
When you get down to it, this is giving players an extra feat at 1st level for the sake of doing it, not because they need it.
There are things in the game already that are not needed such as archetypes. Should we remove those too?
Well, I can say that at least I don't use them in the game I run. Because I think they are an unneccesary addition that tend to shift the focus too much on character builds.
I let people make up their own traits rather than use ones in the book. So long as its not overpowered or too ridiculous I usually allow it in. How people use it is up to them, and traits aren't that powerful. If people want to use it for power, its minimal and their use. If someone wants to use it for backstory, good for them, its not nearly as punishing as picking bad feats and it can really help build a character. If you work with them I think it really helps with character building and rewarding backstory, rather than trying to look through ridiculously specific ones to find one just right for a build.
In the PbP I run, I've opted for the following:
No traits, but an extra feat taken from the following list: Acrobatic, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Cosmopolitan, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Magical Aptitude, Persuasive, Self-Sufficient, Stealthy, Skill Focus.
I share the OP's issues with traits, though I understand they might help flesh out some characters. I much preferred things like concepts, nature and demeanour from Vampire to support character development.
|
|
I let people make up their own traits rather than use ones in the book. So long as its not overpowered or too ridiculous I usually allow it in. How people use it is up to them, and traits aren't that powerful. If people want to use it for power, its minimal and their use. If someone wants to use it for backstory, good for them, its not nearly as punishing as picking bad feats and it can really help build a character. If you work with them I think it really helps with character building and rewarding backstory, rather than trying to look through ridiculously specific ones to find one just right for a build.
This is excellent.
Seriously, if my fighter grows up sneaking around with dissident parents, Stealth should be a 'class skill'...or at least get the bonus. Maybe my cleric has had a fey friend all through his childhood and can manifest Dancing Lights...and, you know, has a +1 Diplomacy mod with fey...
Well, I can say that at least I don't use them in the game I run. Because I think they are an unneccesary addition that tend to shift the focus too much on character builds.
If someone is focused on builds they will do it, with or without traits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but I don't consider that the main issue. I think the bigger problem is with nudging new players into that direction without them even having the intention to do so.
Optimization over roleplaying rarely happens by accident, but rather is a result of what impression players get where the goal of the game lies. If you show them that even fore minor things there are special mechanical rules they "need" to include on their character sheets, they will rightfully expect that it all plays like a video game where you can't do anything that wasn't already programmed into the game.
If that is even a problem depends mostly on what you want to get out of the game, but the way I play and run games, I want to avoid that as much as possible. I want players to think of their characters actions as a story first, and then we see how we can best represent that within the rules. Even if it's just a plain and simple ability roll.
d20 does a lot of things well, but it's a very dense system overcrowded with rules, so I consider limiting the options to what is really neccessary a vital measure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, work with your players. I know it sounds crazy, but its the best way to explain what you want out of the campaign and create expectations through your words and actions rather than hopes and conceptions. Some campaigns actually want more power gaming, others want more fluff, and there's sometimes a sweet spot in between. Expectations are made by past actions, future hopes, and all sorts of things, but I think the best way to make sure people are on key with you is to work with them.
Also, avoid "video games ruined everything!" or blaming generations type speech. Its far from the problem and doesn't help anything.
If everything you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
I love this.
If optimization is such a problem, make your game so easy that optimizing is pointless. Expecting your players to purposely make weaker characters for the betterment of your time at the cost of theirs makes me question why you are sitting on that side of the screen. Traits are hardly over powered, and the main point is: why should players be discouraged in taking traits that make their concepts better? This is complete Stormwind.
Traits are a way to place your character in the world or give him history. I like them for that.
I'm generally in favor of anything that increases character customization options.
I think a good way to use traits might be to make a list of traits appropriate for your own campaign; not the too-long-to-use list of all traits published ever, but specific traits whose flavor meshes well with the campaign you're setting up.
I just like to talk with my players about their backstory for a bit and see what they come up with. I don't like to be forceful, and making a list is work. Players can come up with lots of things!
|
You could use custom-order traits; using the published traits as a baseline, we know that a trait that makes something a class skill and gives a +1 bonus is fine. So if a character wants to make a wizard from a trading family and wants Sense Motive (lying vendors) as a class skill, that's fine. The main requirement would be that the player actually provides a bit of background story explaining the effect he wants to get.
On the other hand, you can also make a short list of traits focused on the campaign premise, that are above-average powerful (as a lure), like the RotRL traits that explain why you are in/came to Sandpoint.
Of course, these two approaches can be combined.
I like traits. They are way to do a lot minor things that feats don't do. I think they make character building more fun. They allow you to make a Character you normally couldn't with out them.
In what case does not having traits not allow a certain character to do X actvity?If I write up my barbarian as someone how is accomplished in the knowledge of demons and I don't have knowledge(planes) then I can still put ranks in it, but it is not the same as having it for a class skill. Just to be clear, I was referring to doing it effectively without having to multiclass or take a feat. If he is supposed to be good at knowing what spells someone is casting having a trait that gives spellcraft also fits. Yeah I can put points into them without the trait, but I will most likely be behind the curveball a lot more unless I take skill focus(X).
If they want to be decent at something outside their class, they can take relevant feats, multiclass, or distribute their skill points accordingly. It can be done.And my point is proven.
There are things in the game already that are not needed such as archetypes. Should we remove those too?
When you get down to it, this is giving players an extra feat at 1st level for the sake of doing it, not because they need it.
I don't see a particularly strong "point" in that first bit. I don't see anything wrong with a barbarian that has decent Int, ranks in Kno (religion), or skill focus as accomplishing that exactly. Yes, you will be missing out on some other skill that might be better for a barbarian, but that's the sacrifice you make to give your character broader abilities. The same can be said for a character that chooses "off-class" traits in favor of ones that coincide with their class; the only difference is there are more things written on your character sheet in the latter case.
As for the second bit, that's not remotely the same thing, but I think the fault here lies in my word choice:
Archetypes are a lateral move: you give up some class abilities to gain others. Generally speaking, there is no increase in power level and you have the same number of features on your sheet.
Traits, on the other hand, are just added on. By not NEEDED, I mean PCs do not need these new traits to increase their character's power, options, or crunch. All of that can be done without traits without losing much effectiveness. Traits are just more +1's for the sake of having more +1's.
EDIT: I am fully aware not every trait grants a +1 on something. I wanted to make sure I stated that before an overly-literal response is posted.
EDIT 2: I have to apologize if I'm sounding confrontational. I don't mean to shame anyone that uses traits in their games. You have every right to. I just don't like what they represent (not every bit of fluff needs to be turned into crunch).
In what case does not having traits not allow a certain character to do X actvity?If I write up my barbarian as someone how is accomplished in the knowledge of demons and I don't have knowledge(planes) then I can still put ranks in it, but it is not the same as having it for a class skill. Just to be clear, I was referring to doing it effectively without having to multiclass or take a feat. If he is supposed to be good at knowing what spells someone is casting having a trait that gives spellcraft also fits. Yeah I can put points into them without the trait, but I will most likely be behind the curveball a lot more unless I take skill focus(X).
If they want to be decent at something outside their class, they can take relevant feats, multiclass, or distribute their skill points accordingly. It can be done.And my point is proven.
There are things in the game already that are not needed such as archetypes. Should we remove those too?
When you get down to it, this is giving players an extra feat at 1st level for the sake of doing it, not because they need it.I don't see a particularly strong "point" in that first bit. I don't see anything wrong with a barbarian that has decent Int, ranks in Kno (religion), or skill focus as accomplishing that exactly. Yes, you will be missing out on some other skill that might be better for a barbarian, but that's the sacrifice you make to give your character broader abilities. The same can be said for a character that chooses "off-class" traits in favor of ones that coincide with their class; the only difference is there are more things written on your character sheet in the latter case.
As for the second bit, that's not remotely the same thing, but I think the fault here lies in my word choice:
Archetypes are a lateral move: you give up some class abilities to gain others. Generally speaking, there is no increase in power level and you have the same...
Sounds like you are scared of your players, it also sounds like you already made up your mind on the subject before making a post in this thread.
|
|
If all PCs gain roughly the same amount of additional power (a class skill, +1 to something else), is that unbalancing? The unbalance that actually worries me is if one PC is making the others redundant; if all the PCs are a little bit stronger I just add a bit more monsters because the PCs are strong for their level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all PCs gain roughly the same amount of additional power (a class skill, +1 to something else), is that unbalancing? The unbalance that actually worries me is if one PC is making the others redundant; if all the PCs are a little bit stronger I just add a bit more monsters because the PCs are strong for their level.
If a +1 to a skill can throw a game off track, I think we have bigger things to worry about.
Yes, but I don't consider that the main issue. I think the bigger problem is with nudging new players into that direction without them even having the intention to do so.
Optimization over roleplaying rarely happens by accident, but rather is a result of what impression players get where the goal of the game lies. If you show them that even fore minor things there are special mechanical rules they "need" to include on their character sheets, they will rightfully expect that it all plays like a video game where you can't do anything that wasn't already programmed into the game.If that is even a problem depends mostly on what you want to get out of the game, but the way I play and run games, I want to avoid that as much as possible. I want players to think of their characters actions as a story first, and then we see how we can best represent that within the rules. Even if it's just a plain and simple ability roll.
d20 does a lot of things well, but it's a very dense system overcrowded with rules, so I consider limiting the options to what is really neccessary a vital measure.
And once again traits are not the issue. If someone wants to kill things and "win" the game they will try to do it. The issues you have a problem with were here long before traits, and if PF 2.0 is ever created they will exist there also, with or without traits. If you give people less to work with they are more likely to try to squeeze more out of what they have if they are worried about character power.
I don't see a particularly strong "point" in that first bit. I don't see anything wrong with a barbarian that has decent Int, ranks in Kno (religion), or skill focus as accomplishing that exactly. Yes, you will be missing out on some other skill that might be better for a barbarian, but that's the sacrifice you make to give your character broader abilities. The same can be said for a character that chooses "off-class" traits in favor of ones that coincide with their class; the only difference is there are more things written on your character sheet in the latter case.
As for the second bit, that's not remotely the same thing, but I think the fault here lies in my word choice:
Archetypes are a lateral move: you give up some class abilities to gain others. Generally speaking, there is no increase in power level and you have the same number of features on your sheet.
Traits, on the other hand, are just added on. By not NEEDED, I mean PCs do not need these new traits to increase their character's power, options, or crunch. All of that can be done without traits without losing much effectiveness. Traits are just more +1's for the sake of having more +1's.
EDIT: I am fully aware not every trait grants a +1 on something. I wanted to make sure I stated that before an overly-literal response is posted.
EDIT 2: I have to apologize if I'm sounding confrontational. I don't mean to shame anyone that uses traits in their games. You have every right to. I just don't like what they represent (not every bit of fluff needs to be turned into crunch).
You don't sound confrontational, and the idea of traits is to help your background out mechanically, and the bonuses they provide is not enough to break the game so they dont really do any harm.
Actually traits are needed if you don't want to multiclass or take a feat just get one skill as a class skill. That is too much to pay.
@Lincoln Hills: It's not so much that I think certain traits are over-powered as I don't like the idea behind them (that we need to have more roleplaying details expressed in numbers and crunch). The only traits I've looked at are those presented in the APG, and I knew I didn't want them because of what they were, not because I felt they overthrew the game in some way.
@Master-Marshmallow: Explain to me how my posts suggest I am afraid of my players (that is not the case, and if I seemed to imply that then it was my mistake). Also, yes, I came to this thread with a previously established opinion (most people tend to have them about things they are aware of), and so far no one has convinced me that traits are necessary or add something to the game that can't be expressed* without them .
*"Expressed" is the key word here. To use a previous example, without traits, you can have a knowledgable barbarian by spending a feat on Skill Focus. Making that a class skill via a trait expresses the same thing (in this case the EXACT same thing in terms of numbers) and have an "extra feat left over".
|
The same could be said with feats. If you don't want to beef characters, leave them out too. Traits are just lesser feats.
Do you think feats add mechanics and take away from story? To keep context, ignore bonus feats on classes that get them; they obviously need them for the class to work. I'm talking level feats.