[MECHANICAL] Faults

[Michael Hopcroft]

I thought I would expand a little upon something I raised in another thread.

I am imagining certain types of campaigns where characters might have handicaps other than what they gain as hazards of adventuring as part of their character concept; things that hamper them, affect their behavior in ways that are less than ideal, or land them in trouble. These I am calliing Faults, and they are the inverse of Legendary Abilities.

A character who takes a Fault gains a certain number of Hero Points in return, but even after those Hero Points are spent the fault remains. A Fault can also be gained in play from things that happen to the character, as the "baggage" attached to an additional award of Hero Points.

One can "buy off" a Fault, but doing so requires much the same procedure as buying a Legendary Ability -- the character must do something in-game to deal with his problem.

Some examples of Faults include being forcibly exiled from one's homeland, an unreasonable fear of some otherwise harmless thing (or a greater-than-rational fear of a dangerous but otherwise manageable one), or having to look after your Kid Brother who insists on tagging along wherever you go. One could also take a Fault when one makes a powerful enemy, which means that enemy is going to devote serious time and effort to destroying, or at least hampering the efforts of, the character.

 

[MylesC]

A character who takes a Fault gains a certain number of Hero Points in return, but even after those Hero Points are spent the fault remains. A Fault can also be gained in play from things that happen to the character, as the "baggage" attached to an additional award of Hero Points.

I'd be more in favour of Faults providing a hero point or two whenever the fault in question comes up in play. I'd steer clear of the reward up front approach of GURPS disadvantages, for example, and use something more like the Keys mechanic from The Shadow of Yesterday.

Anyone had some ideas for Keys in MRQ, by the way? I could see each Key providing an extra experience roll or hero point at the end of each session where the key has been activated.

(see http://files.crngames.com/the_shadow_of_yesterday/tsoy_secrets_and_keys.pdf for a summary of the keys and http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/tsoy2/book1--rulebook.html for a Creative Commons html version of the rules.)

Myles

 

[algauble]

I'm planning on using something like keys. They will provide Hero Points, or maybe I'll call them Fate Points. You'll be able to use them for Second Chance, Glancing Blow, Luck of the Heroes and similar (perhaps stealing a few ideas from Conan, Buffy etc), but not for Legendary Abilities (qv Core Rules p. 59). I 'd like to keep character improvement (including the acquisition of LA) separate.

However, I was thinking you could spend these points to activate LA or similar.

 

[atgxtg]

What might be a good idea is the approach Prince Vlaint used. THere you got the award whenen the ability came up AND the player role played it. PV mostly used that for personality traits (Boastfful, Gullable and Honest, for example, and yes Honest can be a disadvantage at times) but it could work for other kinds of disadvantages too.

I'm just not sure if a Hero Point award is worht it. Maybe an IP roll or some such.

 

[Utgardloki]

I've already made plans to implement this idea, except calling them disadvantages. I remember a werewolf character I had once whom I intended to give the flaw of Alchoholism.

 

[Enpeze]

I dont see the necessity to award players with points for playing out their "flaws". If one plays according to his role, then it should be more than enough to earn the respect of his group for good roleplaying.

2 reasons why I dont like this conept:

1. The GURPS mechanism to get points for advantages and disadvantages is the first step to munchkinism and powergaming.

2. It doesnt belong to BRP. BRP basic philosophy is built on minimalism and simple but realistic rule mechanics. MRQ has already many "gamey" rules, so its not good for the system to add additional "gamey" rules to them.

We should rather concentrate on the question how we can help and advise players to roleplay their flaws correctly during a game. No new rules are necessary at all except they help to create flair for a particular setting (like sanity in CoC)

 

[atgxtg]

I dont see the necessity to award players with points for playing out their "flaws". If one plays according to his role, then it should be more than enough to earn the respect of his group for good roleplaying.

2 reasons why I dont like this conept:

1. The GURPS mechanism to get points for advantages and disadvantages is the first step to munchkinism and powergaming.

I don't agree. By you stament you think that "munckinism" and "powergaming" are the result of advatages and disadvantages. THis is simply not true. THe game with the most "munckinism" imn it had neither. It did and still does have all sorts of rules for what bonuses can stack though.

THere is nothing wrong with rewarding role play in game. It makes more sense than just handling out IPs and HPs for showing up.

2. It doesnt belong to BRP. BRP basic philosophy is built on minimalism and simple but realistic rule mechanics. MRQ has already many "gamey" rules, so its not good for the system to add additional "gamey" rules to them.

This isn't BRP.
BRPs basic philopshy was not milimalisic and simple rules for play, but merely to be an introduction to RPGing. I can think of a single group with a BRP camapign. BRP is just an introduction to RQ and the RQ deriatives. RBRP was derived from RQ, not the other way around. RQ has plenty of rules.

And you argument is sort of a two way strike. BRP is simple, and so we shouldn't have them, AND MRQ is complex and so should have them. One porridge is too cold and the other too hot?

 

[Enpeze]

I don't agree. By you stament you think that "munckinism" and "powergaming" are the result of advatages and disadvantages. THis is simply not true.

I said it is the first step to munchinism and this is true. Maybe you have never played GURPS? If not, you should try it.

THere is nothing wrong with rewarding role play in game. It makes more sense than just handling out IPs and HPs for showing up.

If the GM thinks a player is good, he could give him a extra XP roll for a skill or such. No need to invent another rule.

This isn't BRP.

I know you dont like and accept MRQ and you are entitled to your opinion. But you have to accept that it is RQ4 and that BRP and RQ are close relatives.

I can think of a single group with a BRP camapign. BRP is just an introduction to RQ and the RQ deriatives. RBRP was derived from RQ, not the other way around. RQ has plenty of rules.

While RQ is quite komplex it is far from having plenty of rules. Gurps HAS plenty of rules. D&D has plenty of rules. Even WFRP has plenty of rules. Not RQ. It has too many rules for my taste and it is not the best incarnation of the BRP family but at least it is lightyears better than many other games out there.
[/i]

 

[Lorgryt]

I am going to argue for both sides in the interest of clarification and holding down on the battle magic.

For Ads/Disads:
1 - Aids in creating character concepts at the start of the game
2 - If points awarded at character creation it helps build a particular type of character
3 - Can add a certain flavor to a game that some find nice
4 - More complexity, some like the ability to twist around some rules
5 - The reason I have considered putting them into MRQ is in part for the above reasons, and in part because I have been playing games that have them for the last couple of years and I am used to them.

Against Ads/Disads:
1 - Seldom get played later in game
2 - If points awarded at character creation it can lead to “min/maxing” and “powergaming”
3 - Can add a certain flavor to a game that some find putrid
4 - More complexity, some take advantage of the ability to twist around some rules to excess
5 - The reason I have considered not putting them into MRQ is in part for the above reasons, and in part because I have been playing games that have them for the last couple of years and I am used to them.

Okay... so 5 on both lists need some explaining. But first understand that I am not either way at this point though I am leaning away from using them. I have been tweaking games and doing rule modifications since 1980; it is one of the things I like doing as a mental exercise when I am not doing design work in my real job... I find it rewarding. So, I have had my mind wrapped around the idea of Ads and Disads (or Merits and Flaws, or whatever) for a while. In part, right now, it is a major part of what I am doing with MRQ because I have started a conversion for Deadlands.

On dealing with this issue I have a kind of love\hate relationship. I think that if the players are in the correct mindset and are into role playing instead of roll playing it can be a good thing. But the GM has to keep on top of the players and their list of Ads/Disads. This makes the GMs job much more centered on the players and much less centered on the world. I think this leads to “minutia management” instead of the rich game experience we are all hoping for... at least for me and my players.

But, like Deadlads, some worlds cry out for it. Some worlds, like Vampire, use it as a means of dealing with certain character needs. And some worlds use it as a spice. So there are some times it is a good thing... if the players are not trying to use it to cheat.

There’s the rub in all of this. (WARNING: the following comment is for illustration only and is not meant to offend anyone at anytime!) A century ago in the United States it was a wide held belief that people of color (non-whites) were shiftless, lazy, stupid, and dishonest. As the society integrated and people got to know each other they started to realize that it was a myth; people are people (I know... not all are able to see that... that isn’t the point). I think the issue being raise here about "munckinism" and "powergaming" is also of that ilk.

If you have players like this do you really want to play? When I run across the odd one I attempt (as has the folks I game with) to educate and reform them. Failing that I invite them not to return because their style of play is not ours. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of GMs and games are just like this. Does that mean they these folks are leaving gaming? No! It means that they are finding games where this is accepted and expected. Thus, the argument is pointless. It seems to say nothing more that “Players are a bunch of cheating, no-talent, liars that can’t be trusted!” I just don’t buy it. If YOUR players are like that get new players. Trim out the bad weeds by having a small 1-on-1 or 2-on-1 game off the normal schedule and see if the 1 or two in question like the kind of game you want to run. If they do you have just reformed them, they will do the rest out of self interest.

Final analysis:

When it comes to Ads/Disads it is really a personal choice. Some like them some don’t. If you like them this thread is for you. If you don’t, why yell at them for liking something you don’t? Do you go by restraints and scream out at people who eat food you don’t like? Lighten up! It is a game! It is meant to have fun with!

Oh, and I won’t be adding them to a Gloranthan MRQ game, but I will to a Deadlands MRQ game.

That is my take on it.

 

[Enpeze]

But, like Deadlads, some worlds cry out for it. Some worlds, like Vampire, use it as a means of dealing with certain character needs. And some worlds use it as a spice.

If a rule sub system (eg. flaws/advantages etc.) is necessary for a specific setting for support its athmosphere,I am not against it. See Stormbringer. This game has an elan system which is necessary for showing the relationships to the gods in the setting and I like it. What I dont like is if flaws are just added in the generic rules. they add unnecessary complexity to a streamlined game.

If you have players like this do you really want to play? When I run across the odd one I attempt (as has the folks I game with) to educate and reform them. Failing that I invite them not to return because their style of play is not ours. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of GMs and games are just like this. Does that mean they these folks are leaving gaming? No! It means that they are finding games where this is accepted and expected. Thus, the argument is pointless. It seems to say nothing more that “Players are a bunch of cheating, no-talent, liars that can’t be trusted!”

You are overreacting. I never said this in my post and you are wrong if you think that is what I meant.

I just don’t buy it. If YOUR players are like that get new players. Trim out the bad weeds by having a small 1-on-1 or 2-on-1 game off the normal schedule and see if the 1 or two in question like the kind of game you want to run. If they do you have just reformed them, they will do the rest out of self interest.

Thank you for your tip. But I dont need it. After 20 years gaming experience I think I have a clue with which people I want to play and with which I dont. :/

If you like them this thread is for you. If you don’t, why yell at them for liking something you don’t? Do you go by restraints and scream out at people who eat food you don’t like? Lighten up! It is a game! It is meant to have fun with!

The only one which is yelling here is you. This is a discussion forum and thats why I can write down my opinion about suggestions of others. And if I dont like some opinions I can write that down too as long as I am polite.

 

[atgxtg]

Thank you for your tip. But I dont need it. After 20 years gaming experience I think I have a clue with which people I want to play and with which I dont. :/

BUt this isn't about the people you play with. It was someone'sidea that is being offered up to everyone, and some of those people might have different ideas and goals than you do.

 

[atgxtg]

I don't agree. By you stament you think that "munckinism" and "powergaming" are the result of advatages and disadvantages. THis is simply not true.

I said it is the first step to munchinism and this is true. Maybe you have never played GURPS? If not, you should try it.

I have. It isn't. I find a lot more munckins in D&D that in everything ewlse combined. THere is a reason why it limits bonuses.

This isn't BRP.

I know you dont like and accept MRQ and you are entitled to your opinion. But you have to accept that it is RQ4 and that BRP and RQ are close relatives. [/quote]


No, you are misinterpeting my argument here. My point is that this game isn not BRP. Neither in RQ3, RQ2, Strombringer, CoC, or Nephilim. Related, but not the same. Also BRP was based off on RQ, not the other way around. So the tradtion is for RQ based games to have rules. BRP is really just a cut-doown streamlined introdcution to RQ, not a real game.

I can think of a single group with a BRP camapign. BRP is just an introduction to RQ and the RQ deriatives. RBRP was derived from RQ, not the other way around. RQ has plenty of rules.

While RQ is quite komplex it is far from having plenty of rules. Gurps HAS plenty of rules. D&D has plenty of rules. Even WFRP has plenty of rules. Not RQ. It has too many rules for my taste and it is not the best incarnation of the BRP family but at least it is lightyears better than many other games out there.
[/i][/quote]

Pretty much sbjuective there. GURPS isn't too bad by itself. It does get a little heavy when you throw in a dozen rule expansions. D&D isn't too complicated either, until you supplement it to death.

MRQ was designed to be very simple in light in part so people can add stuff to it. We've been given permission and (suggestion) to tinker.

So let's tinker!

Nothing that anyone posts on the boards is being forced into the game system, or onto your gaming group, unless you choose to do so.

You don't like AD/DISADS fine, don't use them. The guy who started this thread a a few others do. Persoanally, I've like them in the games that I've played that had them, although they worked better in some games than others.

 

[Enpeze]

I have. It isn't. I find a lot more munckins in D&D that in everything ewlse combined.

Agreed. This is out of question. But D&D is a bad game and should not named in the same context with Gurps which is basically a good game (except their ads/disads subsystem) I would not mention D&D at all. The less I have to hear about this parody of a roleplaying system the better.

No, you are misinterpeting my argument here. My point is that this game isn not BRP. Neither in RQ3, RQ2, Strombringer, CoC, or Nephilim. Related, but not the same. Also BRP was based off on RQ, not the other way around. So the tradtion is for RQ based games to have rules. BRP is really just a cut-doown streamlined introdcution to RQ, not a real game.

Ok. Now I understand you. While I meant with BRP an abstract combination of all those BRP relatives like CoC etc., YOU meant with BRP the little 20p leaflet which was included in World of Wonder? If this is true then you are right...then BRP is for introducing beginners. But I am not sure if your meaning is the usual one. Whatever.

Pretty much sbjuective there.

Of course. You are not alone in having the privilege to be subjective

GURPS isn't too bad by itself. It does get a little heavy when you throw in a dozen rule expansions.

I never said this. En contraire I know and like Gurps.But I dont like the disad/ad system and the point-buy system of Gurps.

Nothing that anyone posts on the boards is being forced into the game system, or onto your gaming group, unless you choose to do so.

You don't like AD/DISADS fine, don't use them.

With other words "dont post in this thread, if you dont like the rule proposal?"
I can tell you the same I told the other poster here. This is a discussion forum and if I dont like a new rule proposal I can post it as long I am polite. If anyone post a rule suggestion in a forum like this he has to calculate in positive and negative critics. Simple, no?

I remember the same you proposed in your post to me has been said to yourself after your intensive critics of MRQ. (if you dont like MRQ dont use it....nobody forces you to play MRQ...yaddayaddayadda)
And now? I am wondering why you are using now this pseudo argument against an opionion which is not yours? You should know it better. :roll:

 

[Lorgryt]

Enpeze, what makes you so special that a post to the group is automaticly directed to you? Are you suddenly god?

 

[Utgardloki]

Agreed. This is out of question. But D&D is a bad game and should not named in the same context with Gurps which is basically a good game (except their ads/disads subsystem) I would not mention D&D at all. The less I have to hear about this parody of a roleplaying system the better.

I disagree, I disagree, I disagree. I started out playing D&D back in 1980, and I like playing and runnint 3.5 edition D&D.

But then, some people might think I'm a bit of a munchkin, especially since I'm thinking of all sorts of ways to let RQ players do more neat stuff.

My reason for implementing disadvantages was that I wanted to allow for advantages, and disadvantages would be required to pay the required costs, especially at character creation before they can earn any hero points to spend.

But to limit munchkinism, I sharply limit mental disadvantages. Only mental disadvantages that can be enforced, such as phobias, are allowed. Traits like Code of Honor or Honest are not disadvantages in my game. (In fact, I even made up a Virtuous advantage, which Atgxtg would probably have an idea for converting into a skill.)

I guess you're free to hate D&D if you like, but I don't consider it a bad game. Nor are D&D players necessarily munchkins.

 

[Enpeze]

Enpeze, what makes you so special that a post to the group is automaticly directed to you? Are you suddenly god?

Not that I have any knowlegde about. Have to ask my wife.

I thought it was directed at me. It seemed so because I am the only one at this thread which is against the rule "idea" of the thread opener.

 

[Enpeze]

I disagree, I disagree, I disagree. I started out playing D&D back in 1980, and I like playing and runnint 3.5 edition D&D.

Well, everybody as he likes.

But then, some people might think I'm a bit of a munchkin, especially since I'm thinking of all sorts of ways to let RQ players do more neat stuff.

Not every player of this system is automatically a munchkin. If you say you are none, then you are surely right.

But to limit munchkinism, I sharply limit mental disadvantages.

So you also think that a disad/ad system could lead to munchkinism? If not why trying to limit it?

Only mental disadvantages that can be enforced, such as phobias, are allowed. Traits like Code of Honor or Honest are not disadvantages in my game. (In fact, I even made up a Virtuous advantage, which Atgxtg would probably have an idea for converting into a skill.)

Why not just playing it out? If you like such things make a list and present them to your players to choose. If they like to make their characters a little bit more interesting they will use one or two things from your list and play it out during the game. Without bonus points or any additional rules. Just for the fun and for the reputation to be good players. Simple, no?

 

[atgxtg]

Enpeze, what makes you so special that a post to the group is automaticly directed to you? Are you suddenly god?

Not that I have any knowlegde about. Have to ask my wife.

I thought it was directed at me. It seemed so because I am the only one at this thread which is against the rule "idea" of the thread opener.

Okay, I gotta suport Enpeze on this one. I've been in the "one against the pack" situtation enough times to know that it starts to seem that things are directed at you.

 

[atgxtg]

I have. It isn't. I find a lot more munckins in D&D that in everything ewlse combined.

Agreed. This is out of question. But D&D is a bad game and should not named in the same context with Gurps which is basically a good game (except their ads/disads subsystem) I would not mention D&D at all. The less I have to hear about this parody of a roleplaying system the better.

Okay, One point resolved...

No, you are misinterpeting my argument here. My point is that this game isn not BRP. Neither in RQ3, RQ2, Strombringer, CoC, or Nephilim. Related, but not the same. Also BRP was based off on RQ, not the other way around. So the tradtion is for RQ based games to have rules. BRP is really just a cut-doown streamlined introdcution to RQ, not a real game.

Ok. Now I understand you. While I meant with BRP an abstract combination of all those BRP relatives like CoC etc., YOU meant with BRP the little 20p leaflet which was included in World of Wonder? If this is true then you are right...then BRP is for introducing beginners. But I am not sure if your meaning is the usual one. Whatever.[/qupte]

Yeah I mean BRP = the 20 page booklet that wass incldued with a lot of chasoium products from WoW to RQ2 to duengeon tiles.

As for the other RQ related games then yes, some of them do get compilcated and have point buy stuff in it. SUPERWORLD in partcular. THe one if WoW uses a point buy system, and the stand alone version is even more complex. BOth had DISABILTIES that can be bought for points. So that sets a precendent. IN fact, Wow?SUPERWORLD Predated GURPS by 4 years so if anything it is the Superworld/BRP mechanism rather than the GURPS mechanism.

Athlogh techincall CHAMPIONS Had come out shortly before WoW so it is actually the CHAMPION mechanism.

Still, it has been around in RQ/BRP dereived games for 24 years, so it isn't anything new to the system.






True. Not much of a privliege though.





Okay. Another topic resolved...






I didn't say don't post in this thread. I just got the impression that you were rather hostile to an idea that a couple people had for a houserule.

As far as I'm concered, post away. It's a free forum. Just that whatever "rules" presented here are probably going to affect something like 15-20 people. Maybe. Not quite the same as a core book change.

My point was that MRQ has been relased as a "modular" system that we are allowed to tweak an rewrite as we wish. I've seen several ideas on the board that I like and just as many that I don't. The "hulk' variant with trolls getting triple strength to damage bonus didn't exacly strike me as something I'd want to see implemented.

Persoanly, I've never had a problem with disads in an RPG. I've know one ortwo players who though they were going to get away with something for nothing, like the guy in L5R would took haunted by an ancester and thought "Big Deal, what can he do to me."-not thinking things thrugh for a Shugenja, but I've never had a problem with the disads in play.

I also see nothing wrong in giving a player a little something for having some sort of flaw on thier character sheet. If a character is stuck in a wheelchair, or blind, or lost an arm, I don't have a problem with giving him a couple of extra points. It helps to offset the limitations some.

If someone wants to bring in a quadrpelegic, I don't thinky they are getinng away with any muchkinisms.

s a couple of extra points-no problem.

 

[Utgardloki]

So you also think that a disad/ad system could lead to munchkinism? If not why trying to limit it?

Definitely, a disad/ad system can lead to munchkinism. The problem gets worse in a game like Runequest where there are no classes and levels to keep things under control. And it is even worse in a game like GURPS where everything is based on points, so you have to try to weigh the point value of every ability or advantage the character can have.

The best way to handle this risk, IMHO, is for the GM to make sure the disadvantage hurts. If a player wants a disadvantage that is not likely to hurt (e.g. "Fear of Polar Bears" for a campaign set in medieval Arabia :shock: ), then the GM should either disallow it, or else not let the PC have any points for it, at least until the PC does run into a polar bear.

I also have a philosophical objection to a lot of mental disadvantages. I feel that a disadvantage that controls the way the character is played ("Code of Honor", "Pacifistic", "Hates Polar Bears") is a role-playing crutch. Your character should act as your character would react, not according to numbers on his character sheet.

I don't have an objection to mental disadvantages that cause problems for the character without specifying his actions ("Why does it HAVE to be snakes?") An Indiana-Jones type character can decide what to do when confronted with snakes, but will suffer penalties whenever snakes are present.

So I guess my philosophy on mental disadvantages is that it has to be something you have to fight, not something that tells you what to do.