I have been thinking of letting players choose a Creed for their character like "Better crippled in body than corrupt in mind" or "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day" that they can use like a fate point.

Interesting. Perhaps that could be the reason for Divination? Similar to a Deathwatch PC playing to his Demeanor?

Anyone who thinks I just renamed Demeanor is right but I think it should be something the player picks.

I'm absolutely against the introduction drawbacks. It encourages minmaxing, and that's really all it does.

It would be great to have some formal mechanics concerning in-character behaviour, but drawbacks should never, ever be a part of it.

Interesting. Perhaps that could be the reason for Divination? Similar to a Deathwatch PC playing to his Demeanor?

Finally giving the Divination a reason for being that doesn't rest entirely on the GM. Sounds like a great idea to me.

They don't encourage minmaxing if they're built in as a core part of character creation instead of being awkwardly bolted on in a splat like they often are in most RPGs.

They don't encourage minmaxing if they're built in as a core part of character creation instead of being awkwardly bolted on in a splat like they often are in most RPGs.

If you mean stuff like supposed drawbacks that actually gives you mechanical advantages when you play to them, then I'm preeetty sure you and the OP are talking about completely different things.

More, I'm a big fan. Character and personality traits that give meta rewards when played to, are a great thing as far as I'm concerned. Even in systems like this that otherwise is firmly in a very different camp.

But the thing the OP is asking for? No thanks!

Basically my point of view on drawbacks which give mechanical downsides is that they're going to encourage minmaxing in a system where they're treated as entirely optional, a tax to get more XP, or what have you. But, if they're built in as a core part of the character creation system, under the assumption that players will take at least one or two, it becomes much easier to balance for this sort of thing.

I think Savage Worlds handles the whole thing pretty well, I'd recommend people give it a look (the test play rules should go into character creation).

They don't encourage minmaxing if they're built in as a core part of character creation instead of being awkwardly bolted on in a splat like they often are in most RPGs.

... yes. Yes they do.

To my shame, I've even written a guide on how to think about min-maxing in ArM5 (not yet published), which has has a virtue/flaw mechanic in the core rules book, fully integrated since the 1st edition (back in '89).

Basically my point of view on drawbacks which give mechanical downsides is that they're going to encourage minmaxing in a system where they're treated as entirely optional, a tax to get more XP, or what have you. But, if they're built in as a core part of the character creation system, under the assumption that players will take at least one or two, it becomes much easier to balance for this sort of thing.

There still min-maxing potential, because some characters can afford to sacrifice certain abilities/aspects, to gain advantages in other places. Or you could call this specialization and see it as a good thing.

I think any minimaxing players should lose their Fate Points! They make me sick

Rant over Specialization is ok though.

I think personalities should be ROLEPLAYED not RULED. In other words, you gain no advantage or disadvantage in the RULES for having a personality. Instead the GM gets a little guidance, much like demeanors in DW, for people who play to their character's personality.

I think any minimaxing players should lose their Fate Points! They make me sick

Rant over Specialization is ok though.

I think personalities should be ROLEPLAYED not RULED. In other words, you gain no advantage or disadvantage in the RULES for having a personality. Instead the GM gets a little guidance, much like demeanors in DW, for people who play to their character's personality.

We don't fundamentally disagree.

However, the line can be awfully thin, in my experience.

In particular, I have played with excellent roleplayers, who can and will play their role and do so well, but who will also - almost by reflex - try to see what the system will allow them.

I think any minimaxing players should lose their Fate Points! They make me sick

Rant over Specialization is ok though.

I think personalities should be ROLEPLAYED not RULED. In other words, you gain no advantage or disadvantage in the RULES for having a personality. Instead the GM gets a little guidance, much like demeanors in DW, for people who play to their character's personality.

We don't fundamentally disagree.

However, the line can be awfully thin, in my experience.

In particular, I have played with excellent roleplayers, who can and will play their role and do so well, but who will also - almost by reflex - try to see what the system will allow them.

The other thing that I have found Drawbacks help with is players that are new to RP's in general - it sometimes helps to give them a list of ways they can play their character, plus the extra plot hooks can also serve to bring them into the campaign a little more naturally - In our current DH1 campaign our freshest player (never even heard of RPG's until last year, let alone played one) is currently playing a mind-cleansed character, neutralising his lack of setting knowledge (didn't know something - well clearly they decided you didn't need it when they took the hoover to your mind) and with the shards of memory providing him with something to really engage with in-game - so much so that several of the more experienced players are now also actively trying to find out just who he used to be and what he did.

So in short I think carefully considered and balanced drawbacks certainly have there place in the DH world, but they are going to have to be ruthlessly tested and balanced to avoid the munchkins out there breaking the system.

Regards

Surak

I've played with nightmarish players of the 'rollplay/powergame' variety and its completely put me off the idea of drawbacks for life. I've had the same player take a cocaine addiction and argue it should give him bonuses in combat because he's twinked, play an ogre that couldn't be tricked because 'my mum says that's not how X works", adamantly insist I let him re-write his entire character in Rogue Trader after an errata changed a rule on Bolt Weapons so the storm bolter wasn't one of the most powerful non heavy weapons in the game and he realised he could do more damage in melee. This guy will look through every drawback in any game that allows them and look for ones with non mechanically specific problems that he can either argue into being boons, or just hope they'll never come up.

I'm not saying everyone does this, but I know for a fact they exist and that they can DESTROY not just a single game, but a group if the rules allow them to do things like this. Before anyone says it the problem comes from him being a really good friend outside of gaming, so excluding him isn't an option and it can make any GM call against him seem really harsh because "the rules" are what they are...

I've played with nightmarish players of the 'rollplay/powergame' variety and its completely put me off the idea of drawbacks for life. I've had the same player take a cocaine addiction and argue it should give him bonuses in combat because he's twinked, play an ogre that couldn't be tricked because 'my mum says that's not how X works", adamantly insist I let him re-write his entire character in Rogue Trader after an errata changed a rule on Bolt Weapons so the storm bolter wasn't one of the most powerful non heavy weapons in the game and he realised he could do more damage in melee. This guy will look through every drawback in any game that allows them and look for ones with non mechanically specific problems that he can either argue into being boons, or just hope they'll never come up.

I'm not saying everyone does this, but I know for a fact they exist and that they can DESTROY not just a single game, but a group if the rules allow them to do things like this. Before anyone says it the problem comes from him being a really good friend outside of gaming, so excluding him isn't an option and it can make any GM call against him seem really harsh because "the rules" are what they are...

I feel your pain on this one, we have a resident "rules monkey" in our RP group who is now so notorious for making broken characters he has actually ended at least 2 campaigns before they reached their natural conclusion.

One of those campaigns (WHFRP 2nd ed - so no drawbacks) got to such a stupid level that to challenge the broken character the GM had to through enemies and situations at us that could wipeout the rest of the 8 strong party with little effort whilst only just challenging the min/maxed character

In the end breaking the system is usually down to the player, but some systems don't help themselves.

I just personally don't think that drawbacks are any more vulnerable to it than some talent combos

Regards

Surak

I'm surprised that he was able to break wfrp in that way. In my (quite considerable) experience of gming wfrp 2 very few characters are easily twinked (though there are better career paths than others). The problem is often more than after about 3000 - 4000 xp the game kind of breaks itself with all the characters being far too hard for the system without using some of the 'instant character breaking' attacks like Skaven warplock pistols or 'The felshy curse'. Either of those options is likely to lose you friends though, given the length of time it takes to build a character to that level.

The thing with talent combo's is that theres usually a gap that can be exploited from another characteristic that they havn't increased (psychic attacks/fear/pinning for those with low WP, for example). A big issue is I always think its a bad idea to give uneven xp to players, and drawbacks are a way of forcing this at character creation. If the players have equal xp, then there is always an argument that a talent combo fair game because any player could have bought it (especially in an unrestricted, or less restricted system like the current beta rules with 'aptitudes'). Its not perfect, but its more equal.

Cail,

I can understand what your saying about WHFRP, the group was all at around 5K exp and not really presenting too many problems for the GM (other than a dumb-as-heck ex-marine who had made a packet off of a combat arena completely by luck and then proceeded to spend the several lifetimes worth of winnings on one suit of armour and a really big sword) except for our rules-monkey.

To start with he insisted on playing a Vampire (don't even get me started on how this was rationalised - lets just say eyes were rolled during the char gen session), then he spent nearly an hour reading evey starting career in the compendium to get the best one for his play-style - not i hasten to add his stated character concept. Finally after we got going he planned out all of his upgrades mathmatically to give him the most cost-effective increase in the shortest amount of time. Also he has a habit of retiring characters (for "being too powerful/boring/weak/etc") whenever there is a major shift in the game (such as visiting a new country) and starting again with something tailered for the situation.

On the subject of drawbacks

Most of the critical effects listed in Beta1 were essentually "drawbacks by incoming fire" - so maybe something for "Fighter" style characters to start a little world-worn and beaten up might be worth looking at.

Regards

Surak

Also he has a habit of retiring characters (for "being too powerful/boring/weak/etc") whenever there is a major shift in the game (such as visiting a new country) and starting again with something tailered for the situation.

I have seen this too with power gamers. They spend days and weeks on designing their character, but once the game is going they don't really see the fun of role playing these characters...

With regards to anti-talents, in my opinion there shouldn't be any bonuses for running with an anti-talent. It should be source of good role play and get rewarded by the GM taking the anti-talent into account when planning the campaign. I mean if you character sits in a wheel-chair, why should that grant you some arbitrary xp? There should be a story explaining the predicament the character is in, like why no artificial legs, where is the hover chair, etc... stories that could have an impact on the campaign in a much more fun way than 300 boring xp.

What I don't want to see is some power gamer taking an anti-talent to get the xp, and then spend the entire evening explaining why that anti-talent should more or less be ignored in the game... I have seen that too.

If the GM wants to go down this route, then disadvantages can be a great narrative or plot tool. They have to be well balanced, but the GM has to want to use them So they have to be an optional part of the system, usable at GM's discretion.

With regards to anti-talents, in my opinion there shouldn't be any bonuses for running with an anti-talent. It should be source of good role play and get rewarded by the GM taking the anti-talent into account when planning the campaign. I mean if you character sits in a wheel-chair, why should that grant you some arbitrary xp? There should be a story explaining the predicament the character is in, like why no artificial legs, where is the hover chair, etc... stories that could have an impact on the campaign in a much more fun way than 300 boring xp.

I think the L5R approach (where you get XP for each session where your talent hinders you) is a good one. It encourages players to pick talents that will ever come up. If I were writing Dark Heresy, I'd have every player pick a Flaw that gives no benefits, but gives a little XP (25?) whenever it comes up. (I do feel the XP needs to be a set amount so you don't get wildly varying values between GMs with no standardization). That way every character has a little something that makes them more interesting.

Also, as goes without saying, the flaws would also include a chart you can roll on to randomly determine them, and some flaws would have randomized effects that you roll on a chart for, because in the far future there is only charts

Do we get to roll on the chart chart? That was always my favourite character gen system