Quote from: GrimGentFor one thing, it might be in the nature of the setting that suffering refines the soul, and that there's inner strength to be found in the face of adversity.

I'd regard that as an exception. That's definitely not the case for most games with merit/flaw mechanics. Unless that's the point of a game, I'd regard games that force some kind of philosophy on you as another valid point for this thread... I wouldn't want something like this in a D20 or GURPS game. Then again, most items in this thread only apply if you're not straying to far from rather generic mechanics....

Quote from: GrimGentThen you could simply leave that fear of guns as a part of the character description and be satisfied with playing it out to a lesser degree. But if you know that as an actual disad the fear might be worth a point whenever there are bullets flying about and picking up a pistol would help, well, why not make it one? There's no requirement for the problem be a paralyzing phobia, after all. MacGyver as a PC could have a similar distaste.

You can just play it, put it in your background or put it on a special "quirks" list on the character sheet, I don't particularly care. But in most campaigns, I don't see the reason why you should get some kind of special reward for the way you write it down (or not). Let's say the rogue character suddenly shows some rather uncharacteristic traits and risks his life defending some innocents, along with the paladin who selected the neccesary traits. Why should the reward be inherently different, just because one is a static disadvantage?

Quote from: GrimGentBasically, the Keys allow the players to decide exactly what kinds of events earn their characters XP.

Erm, okay. These keys can be "disadvantages", too?

Quote from: SosthenesLet's say the rogue character suddenly shows some rather uncharacteristic traits and risks his life defending some innocents, along with the paladin who selected the neccesary traits. Why should the reward be inherently different, just because one is a static disadvantage?

Eh, why should defending innocents be automatically rewarded in the first place, especially by the mechanics rather than the more nebulous consequences of earning their friendship and perhaps impressing some benevolent powers-that-be? That's another setting-specific assumption. The paladin might benefit from following his "Code of Honor: Defend innocents at any cost", while the rogue might suffer from violating his "Restriction: Cowardly". (Unless there's an objective morality at work, of course.)

QuoteErm, okay. These keys can be "disadvantages", too?

Sure: flaws and disabilities, dilemmas and duties, motivations and relationships... You could have, say, the Keys of Cowardice and Exile, which would yield points for avoiding combat and being shunned as an outcast.

Hmm, maybe we should fork another thread 'bout this

Quote from: GrimGentEh, why should defending innocents be automatically rewarded in the first place, especially by the mechanics rather than the more nebulous consequences of earning their friendship and perhaps impressing some benevolent powers-that-be? That's another setting-specific assumption.

First of all, I assumed that we reward role-playing with tangible results. This doesn't have to be the case, you could get by in a game where the mechanics of the characters only improve by training.

Given that, I'm not neccesarily saying that the rogue would be rewarded for saving innocents, although that might be the case, too. But showing some unexpected initiative and a new-found morality that hasn't come to the surface before, can definitely be regarded as good role-playing.
The paladin who just goes in there with a "Deus Lo Volt" attitude doesn't have to exhibit one iota of good playing. But he has "Protect the weak" on his char sheet, while the rogue doesn't.

Now I'll ready my defenses for the argument that that's rewarding faggy acting instead of "role-playing" in the sense of sticking to the written down role

Quote from: SosthenesFirst of all, I assumed that we reward role-playing with tangible results.

Hmm. Remaining true to the character is by definition good roleplaying. If a previously callous rogue suddenly goes out of his way to defend the helpless, that's not in keeping with what he has been so far, even though it could certainly change his priorities so that from that moment onwards he finds fulfilment in the battle for justice.

Quote from: GrimGentHmm. Remaining true to the character is by definition good roleplaying. If a previously callous rogue suddenly goes out of his way to defend the helpless, that's not in keeping with what he has been so far, even though it could certainly change his priorities so that from that moment onwards he finds fulfilment in the battle for justice.

That's exactly the reason why I'm against most personality mechanics, including disadvantages. I don't want to describe the inner "character" of my gaming persona by straight(jacket) rules. My conception of the character could change, the granularity of the mechanics might not suit the personality of him, I want to keep things open etc.
My experience on the table -- and those of my fellow players -- doesn't improve by that, at least that's been my experience. I could invent mechanics that allow the motivations and flaws to change as quickly, but most of the time that would be wasted effort.

The costs outweigh the benefits, at least for me. YMMV, of course.

Quote from: SosthenesI could invent mechanics that allow the motivations and flaws to change as quickly, but most of the time that would be wasted effort.

Nob does that with Codes and Bonds and Handicaps. Granted, the first of those represents fundamental beliefs or long-term goals, and as such can't really change nearly as rapidly as the other two.

Speaking of Codes and more on-topic, I've been reading Code of Unaris, and while I very much enjoy the basic premise (relic-inspired MUD software in the modern day acts as a two-way connection to the distant past a billion years ago when humanity still hadn't left their original home in the Moon), why does the default setting have to be yet another fantasyland with elves and dwarves and goblins and dragons?

Quote from: GrimGentNob does that with Codes and Bonds and Handicaps. Granted, the first of those represents fundamental beliefs or long-term goals, and as such can't really change nearly as rapidly as the other two.

I'll get back to you once my copy arrives.

The Artesia game has this concept of "Bindings", which are very dynamic. You could get a "Fear" binding, or a "Love" binding. The only benefits you get from them are improvement points restricted to the domain of the binding (Artesia has a rather involved experience system). Apart from that, they only give you penalties. I haven't actually played with that system yet, but I would say that I can basically live with that. There's quite a lot going on other than that, so it's not really dominating.

Quote from: SosthenesThe Artesia game has this concept of "Bindings", which are very dynamic. You could get a "Fear" binding, or a "Love" binding. The only benefits you get from them are improvement points restricted to the domain of the binding (Artesia has a rather involved experience system). Apart from that, they only give you penalties.

The Bonds in Nob are emotional ties to just about any old thing or concept that a character cares deeply about (loves, hates, either way), and they are more liabilities than anything else since an enemy who learns about them can use that knowledge to cause the kind of pain that isn't alleviated by immortality. Going after someone's Bonds is often much more efficient than physical assaults against the person herself.

Quote from: SosthenesDisadvantages/Flaws/Quirks

At least as they are traditionally implemented.

Ones that reward you when they acutally become a challenge instead of up-front (e.g., WotG, Spycraft, 7th Sea, Haven d20, NWoD), I am a fast fan of.

Quote from: Dominus NoxI think these work well enough, unless the players are munchinkins/minimaxers.

That's a fallacy. "Blame it on the munchkins" commonly is raised as a point in defense of static disads. But when it comes down to it, when I see folks that I otherwise expect temperate behavior from engaging in the type of behavior the system encourages, I don't buy that excuse anymore.

There comes a time to blame it on the system and put this dog down. More and more games have seen the wisdom of going to more modern takes on disads.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad[IMG]Ones that reward you when they acutally become a challenge instead of up-front (e.g., WotG, Spycraft, 7th Sea, Haven d20, NWoD), I am a fast fan of.

... Burning Wheel.  Blindness is damn expensive to buy during character creation in BW. Not quite as expensive as say knowing how to cast magic, but not that far off that.

Unfortunately it really puts the zap on some people when they first try to wrap their head around this total flip from what they've seen in the past where you'd get extra points to spend elsewhere for something like having a limp or blindness.

Quote from: blakkie... Burning Wheel.  Blindness is damn expensive to buy during character creation in BW. Not quite as expensive as say knowing how to cast magic, but not that far off that.

Unfortunately it really puts the zap on some people when they first try to wrap their head around this total flip from what they've seen in the past where you'd get extra points to spend elsewhere for something like having a limp or blindness.

The question is not 'do we make it so they have to want to be blind?', but rather 'how do we GET them to want to be blind?'...

Great, burning wheel makes you pay for the privildge of being crippled. Yay. So did Seventh Sea, and I'm sure a few others.  Now, I know why you might be tempted to pay for blindness in Seventh Sea... though I will admit that it seemed a bit weak, what I don't know is why I should in Burning Wheel?

Another theory all together might be thus: Blindness neither costs or provides, it simply is a facet of the character chosen (or not) by the player for reasons unscruitable and manifold.  

To be blunt, I have not been accused by any I've played with of being a munchkin or min/maxer, yet provided with a list of things that provide a credible advantage (even just the ego boost of knowing that my character is 'Damn Sexy' say) and yet another list of things that will hinder me greatly... if both cost equally, I would rather take the former every time.

Quote from: SpikeThe question is not 'do we make it so they have to want to be blind?', but rather 'how do we GET them to want to be blind?'...

Great, burning wheel makes you pay for the privildge of being crippled. Yay. So did Seventh Sea, and I'm sure a few others.  Now, I know why you might be tempted to pay for blindness in Seventh Sea... though I will admit that it seemed a bit weak, what I don't know is why I should in Burning Wheel?

Is it what you want your character to be like? Then that's the reason to take it. If you don't want a blind character then why is the system suppose to want your character that way?  As for mechanics, why it's roughly comparable to other Traits is because of Artha rewards for taking on and/or overcoming obstacles caused by by the Trait.

P.S. Sorry it is Missing Eye that is 3 pnts versus 5 pnts for Gifted (able to perform sorcery). Blind is only 1 point, although it doesn't represent total blindness more a "legally blind" type of blindness that "total" blindness where you can't even make out light vs. dark.

Quote from: blakkieIs it what you want your character to be like? Then that's the reason to take it. If you don't want a blind character then why is the system suppose to want your character that way?  As for mechanics, why it's roughly comparable to other Traits is because of Artha rewards for taking on and/or overcoming obstacles caused by by the Trait.

P.S. Sorry it is Missing Eye that is 3 pnts versus 5 pnts for Gifted (able to perform sorcery). Blind is only 1 point, although it doesn't represent total blindness more a "legally blind" type of blindness that "total" blindness where you can't even make out light vs. dark.

Aside from the fact that I have no idea what this Artha you speak of is (and nuns everywhere cringe in fear of my dangling participles of)...


Do you honestly mean it is three times cooler to be missing one eye than to be 'legally' blind???  :eyecrazy:

Quote from: SpikeAside from the fact that I have no idea what this Artha you speak of is (and nuns everywhere cringe in fear of my dangling participles of)...

Artha are sort of action points. They come in 3 varieties and can be used in various ways to help with dice rolling and succeeding at tasks.

QuoteDo you honestly mean it is three times cooler to be missing one eye than to be 'legally' blind???  :eyecrazy:

Er, that isn't exactly how the value is determined. The idea is to balance it to mechanically and for attention etc. There is a whole section in the Monster Burner on pricing Traits, and balancing Lifepaths that give you the Traits cheaper.

Yes you can balance it if you use a negative for bad, positive for good traits. But that tends to cause the character that loads up on negatives, especially high value negatives, to dominate play just to enact the intended mechanical balance.