Hey guys,

Something I would love to see would be some negative "talents" that can only be taken at character creation to grant you more XP (like the enemy talent).

These handicaps could also make a character deeper and more interesting.

Examples:

- one-armed

- Phobia

- dark secret

- overly aggressive

...

... Or be used by powergamers to min/max just like they are in every other system with flaws.

Do it WoD style and give xp when it gets in the way not up front.

If I want to roleplay someone with a dark past, I put it in my backstory and that's it. If the GM deems it cool, he may reward me with something extra, incorporate more of my backstory into campaign's plot, whatever. I don't need the book telling me that I can, and I certainly don't need the team munchkin having the mysterious past as well, just because it's worth 500 exp or whatever.

Maybe we can save that for the first Splat.

I'm not a big fan of background downsides, as a GM. The Noble background in DH1 was frustrating. Everyone took it, because of all the bonuses, but the only downside, Rival, just meant I had to work extra elements into my game when I really didn't have the time or inclination. And at one points I had THREE noble born players. Yeah right.

I sorta like the idea of the physical downsides, or well defined background downsides, like "Wanted for arrest by the arbitres"
But again, lets wait for a splatbook.

This is something I very much like about The Dark Eye 4.1.

Such drawbacks can give characters a lot of flavor or even be completely debilitating if amassed.

The greatest problem here is, missing limbs or organs are very easily replaced, making them a very appealing tool to wring out just a few more XP.

So what you have are character flaws and background problems which make for possibly tough problems for the GM if they are not very, very precisely and thoughtfully integrated.

I would propose to go with the tradition of 40k Talents and make them into compounds of socially negative character trait with mechanical benefit (see Paranoia), only the negative effect should have more than narrative effect but actually constitute some kind of problem ingame. With the negative effect effectively giving you XP and at the same time unlocking a special Talent deriving an advantage from the condition, costing XP.

Like, for example, choosing to be a choleric makes need to pass WP tests not to go apeshit when provoked but channeling that rage gives you berserking as a free action.

There could be a wide range of negative conditions that provide a foundation for a useful ability.

I'm not a big fan of background downsides, as a GM. The Noble background in DH1 was frustrating. Everyone took it, because of all the bonuses, but the only downside, Rival, just meant I had to work extra elements into my game when I really didn't have the time or inclination. And at one points I had THREE noble born players. Yeah right.

Erm... Why didn't you use the well tested tool of GM veto? "Three noble born PCs in one acolyte cell. Erm.... No."

I'm not a big fan of background downsides, as a GM. The Noble background in DH1 was frustrating. Everyone took it, because of all the bonuses, but the only downside, Rival, just meant I had to work extra elements into my game when I really didn't have the time or inclination. And at one points I had THREE noble born players. Yeah right.

Erm... Why didn't you use the well tested tool of GM veto? "Three noble born PCs in one acolyte cell. Erm.... No."

or use my prefered gm dodge in this case "three nobles, well you are now related and its a family rival after you all,"

I've player and GM'd in several systems that use complications/drawbacks/anti-talents (i'll use drawbacks from now on) and in general they have provided our group with a wealth of roleplaying that simply wouldn't have happened othewise - usually becuase something triggered a drawback at the worst possible moment, see my example below of drawbacks working well.

*The following example comes from a game played using the Serenity/cortex rules in the Firefly universe - I'll try and translate any system/setting specific jargon into something more generic*

We had a group who were engaged in some rather delicate negotiations with a group of very unsavory people. One of the PC's was a hired gun that had seen a little to much of war and suffered from a drawback called traumatic flashes - this trait basically ment that certain things would cause the character to have a full blown mental breakdown - screaming, shouting, the whole nine yards - when they either see or hear a specific trigger. The GM is told to have this trigger at least once per session to make it actually feel like a drawback, or to have it happen less frequently but at more in-oppertune moments. Needless to say I dropped this particular characters crazy-bomb (as it was affectionately dubbed) right in the middle of the tense negotiations, que some excilent roleplaying from the PC's and some rather fast talking from the party's face-man to create a very memerable experience for all.

similarly it can also can fairly badly if a player takes drawbacks just for the sake of extra points at character creation.

We have a power gamer in our rp group - one very much in denial of his status as well - and he is notorius for getting the most out of a system. During a recent Cthulutech campaign he made a character who was meant to be an aristorcrat with a very shady past. Now in fairness to the character he did have a past so dodgy that it should have put him in prison for live (a drawback called Dark Secret taken at a pretty high level) however becuase he had taken the Asset/Talent Weath at an equally high level he had so much money to through around that he could make any potential investigation of his activities simply disappear.

A more in-setting example -

the Mind Cleansed homeworld from DH1 has a built-in secret past containing some sort of Grimm Nasty Thing for the player to slowly discover in-play - we currently have a mind-cleansed Arbite in our group who has no memory of his service before being part of the current cell. This background has given the player something to really get his teath into in-game, especially now bits of his past have started leaking through. We actually had a mini-session where the groups psyker went tip-toeing throught the arbites head Inception style to try and piece together more of his past.

Just some of my random musings

Regards

Surak

In my experience there are 2 extremes of players, roleplayers and rollplayers. The roleplayer wants their backstory to matter in regards to the narrative, and will do their best to roleplay their character even to the detriment of their character and investigation. They generally don't care if there are mechanical effects related to their backstory, whether they be good or bad, the idea of the character is more important to them.

Rollplayers, on the other hand, are the ones who want some mechanical benefit for their backstory. A Sanctioned Psyker attached to an IG regiment isn't really an IG psyker unless they come with a lasgun, flak armour and the ability to suplex a grox. They could care less about the narrative, they just want to power-game. Their choices throughout the game will not based on what makes sense in-character, but what gives them the most mechanical advantage, expect them to whip out a calculator before deciding which weapon they're going to requisition.

And yet you need to provide the same rules for both types of players

True, so which type of player should we encourage in a given rule system?

Neither extreme should need to be encouraged. Solid, balanced rules should be provided for two reason, which appease both extremes;

• Well balanced, rigorously designed rules provide a balanced gameplay environment, so those who do want to treat this as more of a game than a roleplaying experience aren't met with a lot of choices that are clearly inferior or superior.
• A balanced array of options means that the player who does choose the flavourful option isn't willingly making his character weaker than the others for the rest of the game.

Balanced choices keeps 'rollplayers' happy, and encourages more people to go down the 'roleplay' path without feeling like they're gimping themselves just to play the character they want to play.

Neither extreme should need to be encouraged. Solid, balanced rules should be provided for two reason, which appease both extremes;

• Well balanced, rigorously designed rules provide a balanced gameplay environment, so those who do want to treat this as more of a game than a roleplaying experience aren't met with a lot of choices that are clearly inferior or superior.
• A balanced array of options means that the player who does choose the flavourful option isn't willingly making his character weaker than the others for the rest of the game.

Balanced choices keeps 'rollplayers' happy, and encourages more people to go down the 'roleplay' path without feeling like they're gimping themselves just to play the character they want to play.

I really don't buy the whole roll/role dichotomy, but I do agree with these points.

FATE is a good example of a system that absolutely does not have this imagined problem.

Yeah, I'm not overly into the dichotomy either. There definitely is a scale, but very few players exist at either end of it. Well, more appropriately, you won't find them in most house games. Hardcore 'rollplayers' are probably busy with society RPG play, and hardcore 'roleplayers' probably just feel shackled by rules anyway, and opt for freeform. Sure, a few slip through the cracks, but not enough to be worth worrying too much over honestly.

tbh - both extremes are horrible.

They could however make talents for characters that have been physically disabled in some way though. I couldn't imagine that a player would want to disable themselves just to get a certain talent.

Yeah, that's a good solution, it's used a lot in other systems (Savage Worlds is a brilliant resource for this kind of stuff, by the way, the Hindrances there are great and fairly easy to adapt to any system). Issue in 40k is augmentics are fairly common, meaning a lot of physical disabilities can be overcome for a price.

Could also be negative traits .

Yeah, absolutely. I seriously recommend looking at Savage Worlds for this, it's got a ton of great ideas.

Speaking of disabled characters, it would be cool to see quirks for augmetics. Something interesting such as a cybernetic eye that sometimes perceives something "extra" or a hearing implant that sometimes picks up a strange voice or noise that a normal ear may not.

Speaking of disabled characters, it would be cool to see quirks for augmetics. Something interesting such as a cybernetic eye that sometimes perceives something "extra" or a hearing implant that sometimes picks up a strange voice or noise that a normal ear may not.

Interesting concept, but I think this would cause a great lot of micromanagement for the GM. Accommodating divergent sensual input would force the GM to keep track of who can or cannot perceive what at all times. Let's say you have a group of five, three of which have augmetics with quirks. Now the GM has to work overtime simulating electrical hallucination and stuff beyond the perception of humans in three variations while doing what else is needed.

So you would either mostly ignore it and it would only be a plot device when convenient or you cripple the flow.

On the other hand, making it so (cheap) augmetics only get quirky when actively used for some test, then this might be very interesting in the game.

Yeah, I'm not overly into the dichotomy either. There definitely is a scale, but very few players exist at either end of it. Well, more appropriately, you won't find them in most house games. Hardcore 'rollplayers' are probably busy with society RPG play, and hardcore 'roleplayers' probably just feel shackled by rules anyway, and opt for freeform. Sure, a few slip through the cracks, but not enough to be worth worrying too much over honestly.

I was just pointing out the two extremes at either end of the scale, obviously most players fall somewhere in between (which is why it's a scale). I just think we have should have a system that encourages roleplaying, where someone isn't worried about how their fighter is so completely outclassed by the powergamer's druid, to use a D&D example. A certain degree of imbalance is good for a game to keep it interesting, but within reason. In my experience flaws nearly always tip the scales towards imbalance and encourage powergaming.

Yeah, I'm not overly into the dichotomy either. There definitely is a scale, but very few players exist at either end of it. Well, more appropriately, you won't find them in most house games. Hardcore 'rollplayers' are probably busy with society RPG play, and hardcore 'roleplayers' probably just feel shackled by rules anyway, and opt for freeform. Sure, a few slip through the cracks, but not enough to be worth worrying too much over honestly.

I was just pointing out the two extremes at either end of the scale, obviously most players fall somewhere in between (which is why it's a scale). I just think we have should have a system that encourages roleplaying, where someone isn't worried about how their fighter is so completely outclassed by the powergamer's druid, to use a D&D example. A certain degree of imbalance is good for a game to keep it interesting, but within reason. In my experience flaws nearly always tip the scales towards imbalance and encourage powergaming.

That's why I hinge much of the game on investigation. It balances out those that would normally spend all xp in combat skills and talents. They quickly get the hint when they suddenly become worthless skill / talent wise during non combat situations.

I like the Idea of drawbacks but generally agree that it should come in a supplement.As a GM I find munchkins to one degree or another outnumber 'roleplayers' by a considerable margin. That being said most of them are smart enough to optimize without overkill and inviting the ire of the GM. When I do find actual Roleplayers it is definitely worth it for the flavor they bring to the game!

As a storyteller more than a "best character to win" player and GM, I like the darker side to personalities. It does add extra depth, but I wouldn't like to see too many rules about it. Instead, it should be a bit like Demeanors where a GM rewards players for doing something "in character" even if it was a stupid move.

Example:

My character balances strong loyalty with a quick temper. Hiding behind some metal barrels, he is quite happy providing cover for his friends while they get into position. Then, a comrade goes down and the enemy who shot him went into a building.

Player thinks: Well my character should stay in cover and keep firing. After all, there are a few enemies about and his friends are still moving into position. But it would be more characterful for him to get angry and avenge his fallen comrade. Oh hang carefully planned strategies I'm gonna kill that vile heretic....CHAAAAARRRRGGGE!

GM: After the game he takes the player to one side and informs him that he did a very characterful, if stupid move, which has resulted in the character having a few extra injuries than normal. Here's an extra 50/100 Experience points for you.

Alternatively, if the character ran through a hail of fire unscathed and took out the enemy without taking any damage in return. His action spooking the adversaries into rash decisions that caused them to make blunders that the other players punished them for. That might be worthy of a Fate Point.

Just my opinion.