next »

[Raybras]

For those of you who know Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicles, Kurogane has a 2cp danmed that if he kills someone, he loses a portion of his Strength/skill. Considering the guy always killed his opponents when challenged it really was a flaw.

[Sharpandpointies]

Sharpandpointies, I'm terribly sorry but I cannot see where I twisted your statements. I'm just sure that every player chooses "comfortable" flaws. The problem is, the points of comfort are often different from player to player.
For example "Blind" disadvantage is obviously uncomfortable for any of my players and many other players as well (as long as they are not going to pull the trick with high perception from Dominus Exxet). But I'm not sure about the flaw in question.

The point was I was speaking specifically about this player and this situation.  Not 'every player and their flaws' - making that extension completely twists the point of my comment.  The sarcastic use of 'butthurt' certainly didn't help, either.

From what you've described, this guy:

1.  Is solely taking it for the CP, and doesn't give fig about whether it fits the character;
2.  Is choosing this particular flaw because he actually doesn't want to participate in any of the decision-making or so forth of the group anyway (ie, not really putting his part in).

Having given it further thought, with what you have told us about this guy so far, rather than work the flaw into his background or even continue to discuss it, at this point I'd ask the player 'so, why are you here, exactly?  What do you want to get out of this game?'

And, 'Am I actually interested in having you in my game as a player, if you're this apathetic?' (My Answer: "No.  Sorry."  Milage may vary, of course!)

If this isn't the case, by all means, more details.
  

Spirit_Crusher, I dare to say that most of players tend to take flaws that are avoidable in some way so they don't have to painfully deal with them every gaming session.

I take flaws that work for the character, myself.  As an example, I've played a blind fighter who relied on Ki Erudition to FIGHT, but suffered in every other way (couldn't 'run' anywhere, couldn't 'see' beyond what they could sense with their Ki, etc).  Lots of challanges, that, and constant ones.  If one thinks that taking Ki Erudition removes all the problems with being blind, one is mistaken.  It doesn't.  Not by a long shot.  In a game that doesn't focus on fighting (like this one), it's an enormous disadvantage.

Was fun.  Also had the character 'cursed' so they could never regain her eyesight, so that sealed away the whole 'creation magic fix' or anything like that.  

I'm currently playing a character with a Damned 2 flaw that is pretty much a constant thing, and will only get worse as people progress in levels.  I'm finding it loads of fun, as a challange.  

[Lizbeth]

1.  Is solely taking it for the CP, and doesn't give fig about whether it fits the character;
2.  Is choosing this particular flaw because he actually doesn't want to participate in any of the decision-making or so forth of the group anyway (ie, not really putting his part in).

Well, that's may be because I used the wrong words.

'Am I actually interested in having you in my game as a player, if you're this apathetic?'

He is not that apathetic. He want some badarse npc to give him strategic goals, and he is quite willing to be creative while he have to reach this goals. It's more like party goals are not interesting for him (I dont mind this because, he never backstabbed his own party).

If this isn't the case, by all means, more details.

My players are stalking my posts so I'm restricted in my ability to provide details without spoiling important info.

[BerzerkerUnit]

That's actually a confusing place to be: "I'm not interested in the party's goals, but I don't have any of my own either, GM please point me in a direction and give me 2cp for asking."

If the player wants a badass NPC boss the Damned disadvantage is not what he's looking for, he wants a 2cp Patron or Connections Advantage. That boss will give him strategic goals, freedom to achieve them as he sees fit and probably rewards.

You could even combine the 2 into a 0pt advantage and disadvantage where the curse is just part of their culture. Then each strategic goal is like a test and each part is worth so many points, Conquer that Kingdom 100pts total, deposing the King is 25pts, destroying the armies is 10, assuming control of the armies is 25, gaining the favor of the citizens is 10. Claiming the resources is 30. Then you score it like a test. A military coup would get you a 90 at least, that's an A, circulating a rumor that the King murdered his father or was an Infernalist might help you get the will of the people too, Grats on 100. 

But say you were happy with a D, barely passing, you burn the country to the ground or loose a plague and kill the king.  Resources 30, armies dead 10, King dead 25, 65 points. You pass and earn another day of sweet life.

Then the player could look at their goal and see minimum results to maximum and know when they will die. Whoops the fire we started to kill the king burned the crops, no resources. Army scouts spotted us light the fire, best we can do is kill them all. King escaped to his fortress, stocked for a 5 year siege. I have failed utterly- dead.

[Sharpandpointies]

Well, that's may be because I used the wrong words.

Fair enough, it happens. 

He is not that apathetic. He want some badarse npc to give him strategic goals, and he is quite willing to be creative while he have to reach this goals. It's more like party goals are not interesting for him (I dont mind this because, he never backstabbed his own party).

But he has no goals of his own.  Okay, fair enough.  I understand the situation a little better, then.

My players are stalking my posts so I'm restricted in my ability to provide details without spoiling important info.

Yeah, that's a problem.

BerzerkerUnit seems to have an interesting idea.  Maybe that one will work for you (maybe not). 

[alphawhelp]

It is a little too late to do this for my game, however, if I ever get around to restarting a new and different Anima campaign, all disadvantages are initially worth 0 points.  You have to get disadvantage points by having a well defined goal, or a well defined relationship with another PC or NPC.  So in other words, taking the disadvantage Blind will only get you 2 points if you also have 2 well defined goals, 2 well defined relationships, or 1 well defined goal and 1 well defined relationship in addition to the Blind disadvantage.

[Lizbeth]

Reporting in.

I have found a volunteer who agreed to play with this flaw, and we started a short module.

The party started to run amok (idk why, they are more cautious and sane usually), killed several lanlords and failed in finding their target. After they came to other landlord they met a group of enemies (the guys who don't like anyone runing amok and killing nobility) and there were combat of two lv 9 PC versus four lv 7 npc. While NPC were barely optimized, the PC used really retarded tactics and the NPC had a spree of open rolls (while all of PC open rolls were resistances or initiative), so the weaponsmaster fell (he tried to absorb third attack in round and opponent got an open roll for 210 damage, which caused only critical -4 penalty. He had some hp left and was finished by next npc) and tech with the damned flaw fled.
After that he returned to base and tried to excuse himself telling the story like "it was all the weaponmaster's fault!". He was unseccessful, so the npc master decided that he is incompetent and liar, and got rid of him.

The player actually was satisfied — he said that it was apropriate for the story, and also unexpected, because he never considered this as a serious possibility.
However I also think that he was not attached to this character enough to worry, but if he would I believe he'd be VERY nervous because he usually likes his characters. So I doubt that it's a free CP at least in my games with most of my players.