On 9/15/2019 at 12:59 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I made a Jedi character for a campaign that begins just before Order 66 and continues on through. Because of needing to be in hiding and all, he wouldn't really be able to use his lightsaber and would probably have to use blasters or other weapons most of the time.

I decided to handicap him a little bit for RP purposes, and I didn't upgrade his Agility at all, instead going for Intellect, Willpower, Presence, and Brawn and investing in 2 ranks of Lightsaber even though I know that it will become a (mostly) useless skill. I like the idea of him having to work from a disadvantage for a while (though Dedication might increase his Agility as he uses it more often). One other reason to not give him Agility at Character Generation is that he only has ranks in two skills that uses Agility.

What are your opinions on the concept in general, and what are some examples of where you put this concept into practice?

That "concept" is what I call basic character design, where you actually take the character's background and story into consideration on how you build them. So it seems perfectly appropriate to me. As to my own uses of this concept of "handicapping" a character, I can't really think of any examples off hand, but mostly because I don't consider it a handicapping, just "this is how the character is." The closest I can think of, is a Padawan Consular Healer I was playing in a PBP on this site a while ago, who was a dedicated healer/doctor concept. He had strong stats when it came to healing, either magically, or medically, but other stats were not so good of course. When we had our first combat, and he was forced to kill a couple minions to protect an ally, I had him throw up from the act, because it was the first time he'd ever taken a life. He'd been raised in the healing ranks of the Jedi during the Sith Wars (old republic era game), so was familiar with death, but his personal life structure had him REALLY hate those who took life casually, and callously. So he dedicated himself to preventing death whenever possible, so finding himself in a position where he is forced to kill, shook him greatly. And I asked the GM to assign him Conflict as a result of it, to reflect his shaken mental state, you know, being Conflicted about his actions.

I had a Paladin of Death in a D&D game (The Raven Queen IIRC, neutral death god), and I basically played him as someone who respected death and the dead, as they were sacred, and the domain of his goddess. And I was in a party with a stereotypical greedy rogue, who was a Lone Wolf Loner, with no family ties, and was Alone, did I mention he was alone? Yeah, he basically had zero background at all, and was just a MMORPG standin, for all the depth his PC had. We were going through a crypt or dungeon of some kind, I forget the details, and we came across several sarcophagus' , which of course the rogue instantly starting trying to kick open to grave rob. I expressed my character's dislike of this, which seemed to puzzle the rogue, until I had to flat out say to him "Would you please not desecrate the graves of the peaceful dead in the presence of a Paladin of the GOD OF DEATH!?" Which finally got it through to him that "hey, actions have consequences." So....I guess I kind of handicapped our capacity for loot with that concept? Though I'm skeptical of how much loot was actually in the graves, but the option was removed from the table at that point.

On 9/16/2019 at 6:55 PM, JohnDoe244 said:

Ever turn up to a game with a min-maxer?

The min-maxed character can't contribute anything to the group except under incredibly niche circumstances where they're game derailingly good.

It's annoying. It throws off the balance of the game. It's bad for the story.

A handicapped character is just as disruptive and frustrating for exactly the same reasons.

I beg you, make a character that fits the story your group is trying to tell. A character which is useful to pursuing the group's goals and helpful in advancing the story.

Playing a character that's deliberately bad is selfish.

I'm not saying "never play a Jedi who's reluctant to use their lightsaber". But please play a workable character that can help the group.

I think you have mis-attributed the problems here.

Bad players are bad players. It isn't tied to the minmaxing or the deliberately weaker character.

On 9/15/2019 at 6:59 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I made a Jedi character for a campaign that begins just before Order 66 and continues on through. Because of needing to be in hiding and all, he wouldn't really be able to use his lightsaber and would probably have to use blasters or other weapons most of the time.

I decided to handicap him a little bit for RP purposes, and I didn't upgrade his Agility at all, instead going for Intellect, Willpower, Presence, and Brawn and investing in 2 ranks of Lightsaber even though I know that it will become a (mostly) useless skill. I like the idea of him having to work from a disadvantage for a while (though Dedication might increase his Agility as he uses it more often). One other reason to not give him Agility at Character Generation is that he only has ranks in two skills that uses Agility.

What are your opinions on the concept in general, and what are some examples of where you put this concept into practice?

I have a player playing a Padawan Survivor and has done the same thing, where he has spent is XP un-optimally to represent who his character is. They survived Order 66 barely, and lost their connection to the force due to the Trauma. As a result all the XP spent on Force Talents, and on Lightsaber were essentially wasted, and I explained there is a good chance they won't develop into a Jedi in the campaign I am running.

I wouldn't this is handicapping your character, as technically everyone wastes a little XP here and there, such as in weaker corners of Talent Trees, or skills that don't come up. This is just a little more wilful.