Is it good RP to embrace a weakness? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Is it good RP to embrace a weakness? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
mypetrock
08-02-07, 01:29 PM I have a rogue with a wisdom of 6 [-2] (and an intelligence of 17) and the flaw inattentive [-4] for a net -6 on Spot/Listen. Is it good roleplaying to embrace the weakness in Spot/Listen or would it be better to start taking ranks in Spot/Listen to minimize the flaw?

mypetrock
Tuah
08-02-07, 02:03 PM You have the rest of the party to make up for that. I'd say embrace it to add to character. :D
Free1983
08-02-07, 02:55 PM It's always good to have some flaws in a character but you have to keep in mind that these flaws could have mechanical consequences. And than you have to realize that mechanical consequences could be hard to overcome in game.

I don't think it's a good idea to hamper a rogue in the spot/lister area. People who are inattentive, usually don't perform well concerning criminal activities. If you're so inattentive as a thief, you'll have much more chance to be suprised and thus be taken to prison.

I like the idea of flaws, but you should try to bring in flaws that don't have mechanical repercussions. Or mechanical repercussions that don't have much impact in game. Here are some examples:

Your character is very greedy. This means that he'll take extra risks to get more money. Perhaps more risks than an average adventurer should take, but at least he's not hampered by trying to execute his greed.

Your character has a phobia of some sorts. You might get frightened by fire. Not the torch in your hand, but saving someone from a burning house is something you will let pass by, unless your own life is at stake (sp?).

These are things that have in game repercussions but don't set back your character mechanical-wise.

Of course if all players are taking mechanical flaws and your DM takes it into account, than don't hesitate and go ahead. I'm just saying that a blind thief will more likely end up in prison than dying as a richman.

Cheers
LoneStranger
08-02-07, 07:56 PM It depends on how you handle it. If it seems like you're taking it eventually as a cheap excuse not so much. On the other hand if you're working the flaw into play in more than just the skill checks that is worthwhile.

Another thing to ask yourself is how will the character react to close calls? Will he just randomly go on not getting it? Or will he start to think that maybe his lack of any ability to spot things may be something he'd need to work on?

If you want just a yes or no answer I'll give you a maybe. Run with the character and see what happens, see how the character develops and make your judgment from there.
Terjon of the Blue Rose
08-03-07, 02:34 AM If you want to take the ranks consider waiting to do so until after failed checks have started to cost you. That way your character is aware of his flaw and actively seeking to correct it... the way anyone who knows they have such a fault would.
Cowtessa
08-03-07, 01:36 PM My general rule of thumb? Most characters start with a flaw/few flaws of some sort or another, but, as they progress, they'll work to over come those flaws. If someone has faults and recognize them (and especially if those faults keep putting them in danger!) most people will work to minimize the impact.

Conversely, some people will have a weakness and embrace it, believing that it makes them stronger or is intrinsically part of who they are. Where would Mr. McGoo be if he had radial keratonomy or proper lenses?
FponkDamn
08-03-07, 09:55 PM As one character, due to stats and other choices, I ended up with a Diplomacy skill mod of -10. Now, mechanically speaking, this isn't much of a drawback, since you're really only called upon to make Diplomacy checks if you try to act diplomatic, and I could happily have played my nutty wizard to the end of days without ever having made such a check. But I didn't feel that accurately represented the personality flaw present to create such a modifyer, so I played it UP.

I interrupted important (and powerful) NPCs, told off-color (and downright unsettling) jokes that weren't funny, and tended to pick my nose or clean my teeth while in the presence of the Royal Knights. I never overused these techniques to the point where they were actually annoying to the players or DM, but I sprinkled them in with enough regularity that my character suffered for it. Not much, but enough to feel like I had a flaw.

The king's wizards were sending adventurers out to collect vital pieces of an ancient crown that would make any truly good king immortal. After spitting on the High Wizard's floor and calling his familiar "ugly as the sin that spawned you" we had to walk - while every other adventurer was Teleported to their destination. Ha! Fun.

The DM started making me roll a Diplomacy check at each encounter. If I (miraculously) got a positive number, then I managed to keep my tongue in check. If I got in the negatives, the number was applied as a penalty to the Knight's Diplomacy checks - much to his chagrin. So, we never suffered in the normal sense of losing HP or gold or what have you - but I sat in the hallway for many a negotiating session.

But! The flaw didn't really impact my abilities as a Wizard, which is the real point here. A Diplomacy of -10 is fun; a Spellcraft or Concentration of -10 might not have been. Likewise, the same flaw might not have been nearly as fun if it was crippling a Bard rather than spicing up a Wizard. So! Play flaws that are fun, and you'll have fun playing flaws.

- Johnny
Blackened_Blade
08-04-07, 04:14 AM I would say that it is generally more intresting to embrace and act on a weakness. Too many players, in my experience, try to make the "perfect" character. While this is generally limitted to newer players, it can sometimes carry on. More to the point, few people (especially colleges) seem to realize that flaws can be a good thing. From an RP standpoint, they can generate encounters that would otherwise be impossible.

Go to http://www.roleplaynexus.com/flaws.html
Show your DM everything related to the flaws section. When you guys start a new campaign, give it a shot. If it works out, then use the Flaws system. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I happen to like the system itself because it encourages players to think of intresting character traits, background and then gives the DM more control. The one anger related flaw lets the DM "make" you go into a fit of rage. While some players don't like the loss of control, I feel that it makes characters more real. They become subject to forces that are not entirely within rational control (much like emotions).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mypetrock 08-02-07, 01:29 PM	I have a rogue with a wisdom of 6 [-2] (and an intelligence of 17) and the flaw inattentive [-4] for a net -6 on Spot/Listen. Is it good roleplaying to embrace the weakness in Spot/Listen or would it be better to start taking ranks in Spot/Listen to minimize the flaw? mypetrock
Tuah 08-02-07, 02:03 PM	You have the rest of the party to make up for that. I'd say embrace it to add to character. :D
Free1983 08-02-07, 02:55 PM	It's always good to have some flaws in a character but you have to keep in mind that these flaws could have mechanical consequences. And than you have to realize that mechanical consequences could be hard to overcome in game. I don't think it's a good idea to hamper a rogue in the spot/lister area. People who are inattentive, usually don't perform well concerning criminal activities. If you're so inattentive as a thief, you'll have much more chance to be suprised and thus be taken to prison. I like the idea of flaws, but you should try to bring in flaws that don't have mechanical repercussions. Or mechanical repercussions that don't have much impact in game. Here are some examples: Your character is very greedy. This means that he'll take extra risks to get more money. Perhaps more risks than an average adventurer should take, but at least he's not hampered by trying to execute his greed. Your character has a phobia of some sorts. You might get frightened by fire. Not the torch in your hand, but saving someone from a burning house is something you will let pass by, unless your own life is at stake (sp?). These are things that have in game repercussions but don't set back your character mechanical-wise. Of course if all players are taking mechanical flaws and your DM takes it into account, than don't hesitate and go ahead. I'm just saying that a blind thief will more likely end up in prison than dying as a richman. Cheers
LoneStranger 08-02-07, 07:56 PM	It depends on how you handle it. If it seems like you're taking it eventually as a cheap excuse not so much. On the other hand if you're working the flaw into play in more than just the skill checks that is worthwhile. Another thing to ask yourself is how will the character react to close calls? Will he just randomly go on not getting it? Or will he start to think that maybe his lack of any ability to spot things may be something he'd need to work on? If you want just a yes or no answer I'll give you a maybe. Run with the character and see what happens, see how the character develops and make your judgment from there.
Terjon of the Blue Rose 08-03-07, 02:34 AM	If you want to take the ranks consider waiting to do so until after failed checks have started to cost you. That way your character is aware of his flaw and actively seeking to correct it... the way anyone who knows they have such a fault would.
Cowtessa 08-03-07, 01:36 PM	My general rule of thumb? Most characters start with a flaw/few flaws of some sort or another, but, as they progress, they'll work to over come those flaws. If someone has faults and recognize them (and especially if those faults keep putting them in danger!) most people will work to minimize the impact. Conversely, some people will have a weakness and embrace it, believing that it makes them stronger or is intrinsically part of who they are. Where would Mr. McGoo be if he had radial keratonomy or proper lenses?
FponkDamn 08-03-07, 09:55 PM	As one character, due to stats and other choices, I ended up with a Diplomacy skill mod of -10. Now, mechanically speaking, this isn't much of a drawback, since you're really only called upon to make Diplomacy checks if you try to act diplomatic, and I could happily have played my nutty wizard to the end of days without ever having made such a check. But I didn't feel that accurately represented the personality flaw present to create such a modifyer, so I played it UP. I interrupted important (and powerful) NPCs, told off-color (and downright unsettling) jokes that weren't funny, and tended to pick my nose or clean my teeth while in the presence of the Royal Knights. I never overused these techniques to the point where they were actually annoying to the players or DM, but I sprinkled them in with enough regularity that my character suffered for it. Not much, but enough to feel like I had a flaw. The king's wizards were sending adventurers out to collect vital pieces of an ancient crown that would make any truly good king immortal. After spitting on the High Wizard's floor and calling his familiar "ugly as the sin that spawned you" we had to walk - while every other adventurer was Teleported to their destination. Ha! Fun. The DM started making me roll a Diplomacy check at each encounter. If I (miraculously) got a positive number, then I managed to keep my tongue in check. If I got in the negatives, the number was applied as a penalty to the Knight's Diplomacy checks - much to his chagrin. So, we never suffered in the normal sense of losing HP or gold or what have you - but I sat in the hallway for many a negotiating session. But! The flaw didn't really impact my abilities as a Wizard, which is the real point here. A Diplomacy of -10 is fun; a Spellcraft or Concentration of -10 might not have been. Likewise, the same flaw might not have been nearly as fun if it was crippling a Bard rather than spicing up a Wizard. So! Play flaws that are fun, and you'll have fun playing flaws. - Johnny
Blackened_Blade 08-04-07, 04:14 AM	I would say that it is generally more intresting to embrace and act on a weakness. Too many players, in my experience, try to make the "perfect" character. While this is generally limitted to newer players, it can sometimes carry on. More to the point, few people (especially colleges) seem to realize that flaws can be a good thing. From an RP standpoint, they can generate encounters that would otherwise be impossible. Go to http://www.roleplaynexus.com/flaws.html Show your DM everything related to the flaws section. When you guys start a new campaign, give it a shot. If it works out, then use the Flaws system. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I happen to like the system itself because it encourages players to think of intresting character traits, background and then gives the DM more control. The one anger related flaw lets the DM "make" you go into a fit of rage. While some players don't like the loss of control, I feel that it makes characters more real. They become subject to forces that are not entirely within rational control (much like emotions).