next »

[Roguewiz]

Not a question for disadvantages as a whole, but more specifically a question about the following disadvantages:

Addiction or Serious Vice
Severe Allergy
Severe Phobia

One thing I've noticed that some players do is that they take a disadvantage that may or may not be readily available.  Like being afraid of small children, or being allergic to Cedar while participating in a desert campaign.

Personally, I don't like it when players do this.  As a gamer I of course don't want to gimp my character, but by the same token; I don't want to put something down on my sheet that won't be used.

So, what is your opinion?  Should a player be allowed to take something as a disadvantage that isn't readily available, or should they be restricted to stuff that doesn't require obvious GM intervention to get it in game. (like being alergic to adamantine...as I've seen in other systems)

[Korochun]

Being afraid of small children would be an extremely crippling disadvantage. I mean, unless your players have absolutely no interactions with any sort of civilization.

The second example is just powergaming. It's really up to the DM to regulate things like that. Things like that exist to be exploited by DM and to add soul to a character.

In the campaign I'm DMing, there is a character who actually has an adrenaline addiction. While this certainly does nothing to hamper him in combat, it creates a whole plethora of issues for him when he is just trying to fit into society, which is the majority of campaign (combat is usually brief and deadly in my campaigns, so social interactions are very important). As a result, he does things like gamble the money away and starts bar fights just to fuel his addiction when inserted into society.

Ultimately, there are many ways to do things like that. That said, it's really up to the DM to make sure that player disadvantages come into play without completely crippling them.

[Kalis]

For the severe allergy example, I can't help but think of how silly it was that every 2nd villain of the week seemed to have kryptonite in Smallville.

My biggest problem with disadvantages is that the 2cp ones basically cripple characters beyond anything 2cp advantages can recover.

[Dreddwulf1]

Some of this can depend on the character. Addictions stretch to things beyond drugs and drinking. I once set up a guy who's addiction was training. Something of a good thing, until the character was so busy with it he ignored the ambush that almost killed him.

                 Addictions, Phobias and the like are only limited by what you and your GM are willing to work with. There should always be a drawback, but use your imagination to find it, Too many gamers lack imagination as to how certain of these can be used. Don't limit yourself to what you are told, play with the options a bit. The most fun comes from unexpected problems and how we deal with them.

[Roguewiz]

I agree that there should be a drawback, the problem is if the GM allows something like "allergy to bananas", then all the player has to do is avoid bananas in game.  So unless you're in a tropical climate where bananas are plentiful; the disadvantage is nothing more than a means for the player to "power-game".  In a case like this, if the player does want to not come off as a power-gamer, he/she should take something that is more reasonable; like saying they have an allergy to wheat grain.  Something like that is limiting, detrimental, and has some interesting RP element.

[Lia Valenth]

I once had a party with a person with Sever Phobia of Fire and took double damage from fire. Another party member was a Pyrokinetic...their interaction was priceless.

[girigm]

Its up to the GM and players to make sure that whatever disadvantages regardless of type are relevant to the setting/game they are playing.  If the disadvantage just doesnt fit the GM could say "pick something else" or he could throw in something as stated before.  **using the bananas statement** Like a tag along npc with a craving for bananas and a habit of throwing the peels away in the players packs.  might not always be the one with the allergy...but when it happens it will likely be at a less than opportune moment.

[Kalis]

snip... he could throw in something as stated before.  **using the bananas statement** Like a tag along npc with a craving for bananas and a habit of throwing the peels away in the players packs.  might not always be the one with the allergy...but when it happens it will likely be at a less than opportune moment.

Honestly, if the gm is going to do that sort of passive-agressive BS, my group would just kill the tag along npc.

[Dreddwulf1]

        Just be clear on your drawbacks and work with your GM before the game starts. This should take care of any problems.

[Dynaes]

I think this really comes down to GMs managing expectations.  You hopefully know your group well enough (and they know you well enough) to understand the expectation when you take something like this.  I'm more often a player than a GM in my group, and I would never take a disadvantage that wouldn't come up.  We aren't really powergamers, though.  If everyone in the group powergames, and that's accepted, then it shouldn't be an issue. 

I would probably disallow a bad pick like the banana example at creation if I were running it.  Else I'd warn them that if it didn't come up often enough to be a real disadvantage, they might find their advantage not working the way they expect.  Turnabout is fair play.

[Roguewiz]

I think this really comes down to GMs managing expectations.  You hopefully know your group well enough (and they know you well enough) to understand the expectation when you take something like this.  I'm more often a player than a GM in my group, and I would never take a disadvantage that wouldn't come up.  We aren't really powergamers, though.  If everyone in the group powergames, and that's accepted, then it shouldn't be an issue. 

I would probably disallow a bad pick like the banana example at creation if I were running it.  Else I'd warn them that if it didn't come up often enough to be a real disadvantage, they might find their advantage not working the way they expect.  Turnabout is fair play.

*Nods*

If the player can come up with a legit reason or roleplay element for a paranoia or allergy, then I would be a little more understanding.  Example:  You're afraid of children, so what is the best way to make sure it doesn't come up?  Being a big named politician in-game and imprison all children! (taken from Chiti Chiti Bang Bang..old movie)

[Gimp]

snip... he could throw in something as stated before.  **using the bananas statement** Like a tag along npc with a craving for bananas and a habit of throwing the peels away in the players packs.  might not always be the one with the allergy...but when it happens it will likely be at a less than opportune moment.

Honestly, if the gm is going to do that sort of passive-agressive BS, my group would just kill the tag along npc.

And yet, if the player began it by taking what they felt was a non-threatening element to justify a huge disadvantage payoff, what should they expect?  IF a player decides to pull stupid BS in my campaigns, they can expect stupid BS to come around to bite them, unless the capaign is structured with everyone doing so from the outset with the understanding they are all doing it.
 
Roleplaying has no reason for people to try and min-max or munchkin the fun out of it for other players.  If everyone is being encourqaged to create charicatures for slap happy silliness, then go for it, but if most players want a reasonable, logical, and functional approach to the rules, players who want to play the rules instead of the game need to understand they will not be allowed to do so. 
 
The GM is there to help players have fun, but they are there to help all of the players have fun, and not put up with munchkinisms from one player simply because that player insists they need it to have fun.
 
No single player has the right to expect everyone else to put up with whatever shannanigans they want to pull simply by pulling the, 'But it's what my character would be like!' BS.  A gaming group is a group, and not toys and puppets for one, or even a few, players to jerk around.
 
The most common result of players in campaigns I've dealt with with that kind of attitude was for the other players to decide they didn't want to put up with it, and leave the munchkin character behind.  Sometimes, that meant leaving the player behind, but if one player is ruining everyone else's fun they have no right to stay.  No one person's view of what is fun overrules the other players' views.
 
Many gamers tend to bend over backwards and put up with stuff their characters would never accept, nor they themselves enjoy, because they don't want to make a scene.  Scenes, however, sometimes need to be made if a group is to actually have fun.

[Kalis]

quote tree snip for space...
And yet, if the player began it by taking what they felt was a non-threatening element to justify a huge disadvantage payoff, what should they expect?  IF a player decides to pull stupid BS in my campaigns, they can expect stupid BS to come around to bite them, unless the capaign is structured with everyone doing so from the outset with the understanding they are all doing it.

The thing is that allergies are something that exist in the real world and are fairly serious. Any tag along npc that is doing this is basically attempting murder on the PC in question, especially if the npc is warned in character that the PC is allergic and to knock it off with the bananas. My group is willing to kill for far less.

[girigm]

snip... he could throw in something as stated before.  **using the bananas statement** Like a tag along npc with a craving for bananas and a habit of throwing the peels away in the players packs.  might not always be the one with the allergy...but when it happens it will likely be at a less than opportune moment.

Honestly, if the gm is going to do that sort of passive-agressive BS, my group would just kill the tag along npc.

well, the intent wasnt to be passive aggressive.  the idea would be to have some kind of comic relief based on an absurd allergy/phobia. But, as stated prior to that, it should have already been flushed out between the player and gm before the game started.

[Gimp]

quote tree snip for space...
And yet, if the player began it by taking what they felt was a non-threatening element to justify a huge disadvantage payoff, what should they expect?  IF a player decides to pull stupid BS in my campaigns, they can expect stupid BS to come around to bite them, unless the capaign is structured with everyone doing so from the outset with the understanding they are all doing it.

The thing is that allergies are something that exist in the real world and are fairly serious. Any tag along npc that is doing this is basically attempting murder on the PC in question, especially if the npc is warned in character that the PC is allergic and to knock it off with the bananas. My group is willing to kill for far less.

I agree that allergies can be very serious.  Several memebers of my extended family suffer from extreme allergies, so I've dealt with it all my lie.
 
The situation becomes a problem when a player decides to take an allergy to something they expect their character will never encounter as a dodge to gain extra CP because of what becomes , in effect, a non-existant disadvantage.
 
As a GM, I would simply disallow a player taking a bogus disadvantage.  For the Severe Allergy to be a valid choice, it would have to be an actual threat the character would have to watch out for.
 
If a less experienced GM let something like that come into their campaign, and the player was causing problems rather than adjust the allergy once it came to light, I would see no problem with having multiple NPC's bring out the bananas when they didn't know, in character, that the allegy existed.  A banana would be a special treat until they knew there was a problem, and how would they even know unless the character was introduced that way.
 
Once any NPC was made aware of the allergy, what they did would depend on the character with the allergy, and their opinion of them.  Forgetting an uncommon allergy when cooking, cleaning, or whatever should not be considered attempted murder.
 
Of course, a GM could simply declare that the character thought it was bananas they were allergic to, but would obviously not be able to be sure.  Having a severe allergy against an unknown new food would add something interesting to penalize the munchkin character.