RP Antifeats in fantasy settings [Archive] - Wizards Community

RP Antifeats in fantasy settings [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Zyklon
07-18-06, 09:10 AM Antifeats were introduced In Kingdoms of Kalamar, but they tend to have some proplems, they are usually not very RP oriented. Antifeat = Like feat, but insted of +4 to iniative, you take -4 for it, and if you take two antifeats you get one feat.

I was thinking does you have any good fantasy settings RP antifeats in mind. I try to find something more than just -X to one skill etc.
Like Alcoholsim: will DC 15, otherwise player will get drunk when in place he can get alcohol

These would make great way to players get couple of more feats they might want to get, but still these penalties might help to develope characters story/background.
Uberwoot
07-18-06, 01:00 PM You might try looking in Unearthed Arcana; the Flaws system (pages 91 and 92) is similar to what you're talking about.

I will give a warning, however- any system that allows a player to customize their weaknesses is inherently imbalanced.

/Woot
Imban
07-20-06, 10:57 PM Well, that's partially true. Almost any system that allows you to customize your character at all in game-mechanical terms is "inherently imbalanced", if by "imbalanced" you mean unequal. See: the character who takes Toughness twice vs. the character who takes Toughness and Improved Toughness, or just feats that are any good at all.

If by "imbalanced" you mean that it'll wreck your game, just think about it like this: would you feel it would utterly wreck your game if you decided that, instead of one feat at first level, each and every player character would receive three feats at first level, with no drawback? Allowing antifeats or flaws will have less of an impact than that.

((I've also never been comfortable with the way many "RP flaws" are presented, though. Many of them tend to turn a character into a mere charicature by forcing him to do his "flawed" behavior at every possible opportunity.))
Zyklon
07-21-06, 03:41 AM Yes im familiar with some of these flaws, but now i was hoping that you could have some clearly RP antifeats, they can be weak, silly, funny, anything. And yes with these you can make your character über IF you GM allows that. Usully we use these so player can take some feat that fits to him, but they usually arent so strong (just as skill empathy for performance taking by fighter etc..).

We are just running out of ideas for fun RP antifeats, maybe you have more imagination than us.
Syltorian
07-23-06, 10:16 AM Have you seen the flaws that appeared over several Dragon Magazines about a year back? There are some that might be what you are looking for. Some are "physical" (lightweight, stubby fingers) while others are mental (gullible, claustrophobic, superstitious). A number depend on class abilities (meticulous performer for a bard, for example).

They are handled the same was as those in Unearthed Arcana, but are much more interesting for their roleplaying potential. (And for the funny, if utterly unplayable ones, there are the Commoner flaws that appeared in the April Issue a year back...). You should give them a go, if you haven't done so already. There are some good ideas in there, even if for higher levels they might need some changes as some saves and checks become automatic successes then.
Radijs
07-23-06, 11:14 AM In which dragon magazines did they put these flaws? They sound very interesting and like something I've been looking for in this (http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=670136)thread.
Syltorian
07-23-06, 12:10 PM Here we go. I think these should be all...

Note that while the Flaws are organised by classes (and in one article, races) in Dragon, many of them do not actually require you to belong to that class or race. E.g. Gullible appears under Flaws for Barbarians, but can be taken by anyone really. It gives you penalties against Illusions and on Sense Motive, but does not require any specific class ability.

#324 (October 2004):
Flaws for Druids (Bestial Instinct, City Slicker, Claustrophobia, Cold-Blooded, Forlorn of Men, Hot-Blooded, Love of Nature, Metal Intolerance, No Time For Book Learning).
Flaws for Paladins (Chivalrous Courtesy, Code of Arms, Honorable Challenge, Honor of the Duel, Mounted Warrior, Pride of Arms, Solitary Paragon, Warrior of the Phalanx).
Flaws for Bards (Arcane Performer, Brash, Coward, Fool, Frivolous Performer, Loudmouth, Meticulous Performer, Trivial Performer).

#325 (November 2004)
Flaws for Barbarians (Blind Rage, Exhausting Rage, Gullible, Quick Burning Rage, Slow to Anger, Superstitious, Uncontrollable Rage)

#326 (December 2004)
Flaws for Clerics (Aligned Devotion, Divine Gestures, Domain Devotion, Living Faith, Material Devotion, Ponderous Spellcaster, Weapon Bound).

#327 (January 2005)
Flaws for Sorcerers (Haunted, Loner, Magical Overload, Phantom Sparks, Restricted Sorcery)

#328 (February 2005)
Flaws for Dwarves (Glory Hound, Grudge Keeper, Implacable, Stubby Fingers)
Flaws for Elves (Elven Pride of Arms, Frail, Fussy, Slow Healing)
Flaws for Gnomes (Arcane Conundrum, Curious, Magical Fascination, Short Attention Span)
Flaws for Half-Elves (Free Spirited, Half-Blood Outcast, Insomniac, Quarter-Elf)
Flaws for Half-Orcs (Beady Eyes, Bravado, Light Sensitivity, Short Temper)
Flaws for Halflings (Cautious, Lightweight, Obese, Skulker)

#329 (March 2005)
Flaws for Rangers (Beastly, Foe Specialist, Hatred, Individualist, Terrain Specialist, Wild)

#330 (April 2005)
Flaws for Commoners (Chicken Infested, Corpse, Delicious, Dirt Farmer, Incomprehensible Accent, Nagging Cough, Peasant Hat, Pig Bond, Unimportant NPC, Weresheep, XP Farm) [Note: Well yes. It's the April issue...]

#333 (July 2005)
Flaws for Wizards (Arcane Fatigue, Arcane Parasites, Forlorn, Methodical Magial Methods, Short of Breath, Test Subject)
Uberwoot
07-23-06, 10:21 PM If by "imbalanced" you mean that it'll wreck your game

Actually, I look at "balance" from a programmer/designer's perspective: if a ruleset requires administrative intervention to preclude a ridiculously powerful combination, it's probably imbalanced (and yeah, I realize that by this definition you could argue that even the core rules are imbalanced). However, that's neither here nor there, as I don't think it contributes meaningfully to this thread.

I looked over the list in Syltorian's post and I just don't think that offering feats in exchange for roleplaying antifeats is a good idea in general. Roleplaying- and the bonus experience occasionally associated with it- is its own reward. However, I suppose it would have its value for games in which the players are generally new or poor roleplayers.

/Woot
Syltorian
07-24-06, 05:03 AM I looked over the list in Syltorian's post and I just don't think that offering feats in exchange for roleplaying antifeats is a good idea in general. Roleplaying- and the bonus experience occasionally associated with it- is its own reward. However, I suppose it would have its value for games in which the players are generally new or poor roleplayers.

I have to respectfully disagree. I understand where you are coming from, but let me explain why I am in favour of flaws in general. Our group is using flaws, and (needless to say), neither of my players is a poor roleplayer, and only one is new (and she is doing great). I do not think you wished to imply that, but I hope to provide examples of how good players may use flaws to their advantage, and the advantage of roleplaying the character they want to in the actual (and unfortunately not free-form) game.

As an added remark, also from experience, flaws are actually a poor idea for new roleplayers (people new to the game, that is), because they tend to get confused about the massive amount of core-rules there is already without adding anything to it.

Of course, you can abuse Flaws; but as you said you can abuse the core-rules. What flaws are great for is personalising your character, both in the negative way by the flaw itself, and by allowing you to take feats that are, on a pure 'survival' basis, suicide because you cannot also take the ones you need to survive. Roleplaying can be its own reward, but unfortunately, D&D needs rules to determine what characters can do, and what they cannot do. Otherwise, you can do away with skills and feats. Flaws help a lot on actually making the character on your sheet the same as the one in your mind - and to me, that is a great thing.

For instance, if you want to play a fighter with some skill at music, you could take two flaws and a feat that enables you to chose another in-class skill or more skillpoints (such as Open Mind), and then go for Versatile Performer. You do not have to be a bad combatant just because you wanted more social aspects to your fighter. If you do not have those feats and the skill-points in Perform, no matter how much you claim that your character is good at music, once he has to roll, that's it. Unless you do not have the player roll, but then, what is the Perform skill there for? Just for bardic music?

"Poor roleplayer" is not whether or not a person choses flaws and the feats they gain, but how they go about and what they use them for. But that is the case with every other rule, too.

Balance, as far as I see it, is determined not by how your character compares to regular D&D characters, but by how he compares to other characters (NPC and PC) in your specific game. So if they powerplay with flaws, then I, as the DM, can do so as well with the foes they encounter. But as I said, I do not need to powergame my monsters, because the trust I put in my players when I allowed the rule was rewarded, and they did not abuse them.

As I see it, these are the two points we most disagree on: our definition of balance, and my desire to see as much of a characters personality reflected in the actual sheet as possible, without being restricted by the rules in what I can do. Flaws help us to bend the rules to fit the character, instead of the other way around. Can it really hurt if you can actually support your roleplaying with the rollplaying, instead of the latter getting into the way of the former?
Vrykolakas
08-04-06, 11:47 AM I will give a warning, however- any system that allows a player to customize their weaknesses is inherently imbalanced.Try GURPS and come back ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zyklon 07-18-06, 09:10 AM	Antifeats were introduced In Kingdoms of Kalamar, but they tend to have some proplems, they are usually not very RP oriented. Antifeat = Like feat, but insted of +4 to iniative, you take -4 for it, and if you take two antifeats you get one feat. I was thinking does you have any good fantasy settings RP antifeats in mind. I try to find something more than just -X to one skill etc. Like Alcoholsim: will DC 15, otherwise player will get drunk when in place he can get alcohol These would make great way to players get couple of more feats they might want to get, but still these penalties might help to develope characters story/background.
Uberwoot 07-18-06, 01:00 PM	You might try looking in Unearthed Arcana; the Flaws system (pages 91 and 92) is similar to what you're talking about. I will give a warning, however- any system that allows a player to customize their weaknesses is inherently imbalanced. /Woot
Imban 07-20-06, 10:57 PM	Well, that's partially true. Almost any system that allows you to customize your character at all in game-mechanical terms is "inherently imbalanced", if by "imbalanced" you mean unequal. See: the character who takes Toughness twice vs. the character who takes Toughness and Improved Toughness, or just feats that are any good at all. If by "imbalanced" you mean that it'll wreck your game, just think about it like this: would you feel it would utterly wreck your game if you decided that, instead of one feat at first level, each and every player character would receive three feats at first level, with no drawback? Allowing antifeats or flaws will have less of an impact than that. ((I've also never been comfortable with the way many "RP flaws" are presented, though. Many of them tend to turn a character into a mere charicature by forcing him to do his "flawed" behavior at every possible opportunity.))
Zyklon 07-21-06, 03:41 AM	Yes im familiar with some of these flaws, but now i was hoping that you could have some clearly RP antifeats, they can be weak, silly, funny, anything. And yes with these you can make your character über IF you GM allows that. Usully we use these so player can take some feat that fits to him, but they usually arent so strong (just as skill empathy for performance taking by fighter etc..). We are just running out of ideas for fun RP antifeats, maybe you have more imagination than us.
Syltorian 07-23-06, 10:16 AM	Have you seen the flaws that appeared over several Dragon Magazines about a year back? There are some that might be what you are looking for. Some are "physical" (lightweight, stubby fingers) while others are mental (gullible, claustrophobic, superstitious). A number depend on class abilities (meticulous performer for a bard, for example). They are handled the same was as those in Unearthed Arcana, but are much more interesting for their roleplaying potential. (And for the funny, if utterly unplayable ones, there are the Commoner flaws that appeared in the April Issue a year back...). You should give them a go, if you haven't done so already. There are some good ideas in there, even if for higher levels they might need some changes as some saves and checks become automatic successes then.
Radijs 07-23-06, 11:14 AM	In which dragon magazines did they put these flaws? They sound very interesting and like something I've been looking for in this (http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=670136)thread.
Syltorian 07-23-06, 12:10 PM	Here we go. I think these should be all... Note that while the Flaws are organised by classes (and in one article, races) in Dragon, many of them do not actually require you to belong to that class or race. E.g. Gullible appears under Flaws for Barbarians, but can be taken by anyone really. It gives you penalties against Illusions and on Sense Motive, but does not require any specific class ability. #324 (October 2004): Flaws for Druids (Bestial Instinct, City Slicker, Claustrophobia, Cold-Blooded, Forlorn of Men, Hot-Blooded, Love of Nature, Metal Intolerance, No Time For Book Learning). Flaws for Paladins (Chivalrous Courtesy, Code of Arms, Honorable Challenge, Honor of the Duel, Mounted Warrior, Pride of Arms, Solitary Paragon, Warrior of the Phalanx). Flaws for Bards (Arcane Performer, Brash, Coward, Fool, Frivolous Performer, Loudmouth, Meticulous Performer, Trivial Performer). #325 (November 2004) Flaws for Barbarians (Blind Rage, Exhausting Rage, Gullible, Quick Burning Rage, Slow to Anger, Superstitious, Uncontrollable Rage) #326 (December 2004) Flaws for Clerics (Aligned Devotion, Divine Gestures, Domain Devotion, Living Faith, Material Devotion, Ponderous Spellcaster, Weapon Bound). #327 (January 2005) Flaws for Sorcerers (Haunted, Loner, Magical Overload, Phantom Sparks, Restricted Sorcery) #328 (February 2005) Flaws for Dwarves (Glory Hound, Grudge Keeper, Implacable, Stubby Fingers) Flaws for Elves (Elven Pride of Arms, Frail, Fussy, Slow Healing) Flaws for Gnomes (Arcane Conundrum, Curious, Magical Fascination, Short Attention Span) Flaws for Half-Elves (Free Spirited, Half-Blood Outcast, Insomniac, Quarter-Elf) Flaws for Half-Orcs (Beady Eyes, Bravado, Light Sensitivity, Short Temper) Flaws for Halflings (Cautious, Lightweight, Obese, Skulker) #329 (March 2005) Flaws for Rangers (Beastly, Foe Specialist, Hatred, Individualist, Terrain Specialist, Wild) #330 (April 2005) Flaws for Commoners (Chicken Infested, Corpse, Delicious, Dirt Farmer, Incomprehensible Accent, Nagging Cough, Peasant Hat, Pig Bond, Unimportant NPC, Weresheep, XP Farm) [Note: Well yes. It's the April issue...] #333 (July 2005) Flaws for Wizards (Arcane Fatigue, Arcane Parasites, Forlorn, Methodical Magial Methods, Short of Breath, Test Subject)
Uberwoot 07-23-06, 10:21 PM	If by "imbalanced" you mean that it'll wreck your game Actually, I look at "balance" from a programmer/designer's perspective: if a ruleset requires administrative intervention to preclude a ridiculously powerful combination, it's probably imbalanced (and yeah, I realize that by this definition you could argue that even the core rules are imbalanced). However, that's neither here nor there, as I don't think it contributes meaningfully to this thread. I looked over the list in Syltorian's post and I just don't think that offering feats in exchange for roleplaying antifeats is a good idea in general. Roleplaying- and the bonus experience occasionally associated with it- is its own reward. However, I suppose it would have its value for games in which the players are generally new or poor roleplayers. /Woot
Syltorian 07-24-06, 05:03 AM	I looked over the list in Syltorian's post and I just don't think that offering feats in exchange for roleplaying antifeats is a good idea in general. Roleplaying- and the bonus experience occasionally associated with it- is its own reward. However, I suppose it would have its value for games in which the players are generally new or poor roleplayers. I have to respectfully disagree. I understand where you are coming from, but let me explain why I am in favour of flaws in general. Our group is using flaws, and (needless to say), neither of my players is a poor roleplayer, and only one is new (and she is doing great). I do not think you wished to imply that, but I hope to provide examples of how good players may use flaws to their advantage, and the advantage of roleplaying the character they want to in the actual (and unfortunately not free-form) game. As an added remark, also from experience, flaws are actually a poor idea for new roleplayers (people new to the game, that is), because they tend to get confused about the massive amount of core-rules there is already without adding anything to it. Of course, you can abuse Flaws; but as you said you can abuse the core-rules. What flaws are great for is personalising your character, both in the negative way by the flaw itself, and by allowing you to take feats that are, on a pure 'survival' basis, suicide because you cannot also take the ones you need to survive. Roleplaying can be its own reward, but unfortunately, D&D needs rules to determine what characters can do, and what they cannot do. Otherwise, you can do away with skills and feats. Flaws help a lot on actually making the character on your sheet the same as the one in your mind - and to me, that is a great thing. For instance, if you want to play a fighter with some skill at music, you could take two flaws and a feat that enables you to chose another in-class skill or more skillpoints (such as Open Mind), and then go for Versatile Performer. You do not have to be a bad combatant just because you wanted more social aspects to your fighter. If you do not have those feats and the skill-points in Perform, no matter how much you claim that your character is good at music, once he has to roll, that's it. Unless you do not have the player roll, but then, what is the Perform skill there for? Just for bardic music? "Poor roleplayer" is not whether or not a person choses flaws and the feats they gain, but how they go about and what they use them for. But that is the case with every other rule, too. Balance, as far as I see it, is determined not by how your character compares to regular D&D characters, but by how he compares to other characters (NPC and PC) in your specific game. So if they powerplay with flaws, then I, as the DM, can do so as well with the foes they encounter. But as I said, I do not need to powergame my monsters, because the trust I put in my players when I allowed the rule was rewarded, and they did not abuse them. As I see it, these are the two points we most disagree on: our definition of balance, and my desire to see as much of a characters personality reflected in the actual sheet as possible, without being restricted by the rules in what I can do. Flaws help us to bend the rules to fit the character, instead of the other way around. Can it really hurt if you can actually support your roleplaying with the rollplaying, instead of the latter getting into the way of the former?
Vrykolakas 08-04-06, 11:47 AM	I will give a warning, however- any system that allows a player to customize their weaknesses is inherently imbalanced.Try GURPS and come back ;)