Topic: Flaws in Training Packages

[markc]

 I am thinking about having Flaws offset some of the cost of Training Packages, but I wanted some feedback first from you all. I am thinking of a 10 point flaw offsetting 10 DP worth of the TP or even a strait reduction of 4 ranks from the TP. That depends on how the TP cost is generated, ie just strait counting of the number of skill ranks or a 25% reduction of the cost of skill ranks.
 
 I sort of like this idea as now you can also give some talents as part of the TP as needed (as determined by the GM) and provide for some offsetting of the cost by appropriate flaws. The most obvious flaw the comes to mind in TP's is an oath to a mentor or group. Now a PC actually gains something from the flaw and he has something to lose if the group/mentor comes after him if the TP is one of a linked group. A linked group of TP's for example would be Ninja Level 1 Black Lotus Clan, Ninja Level 2 Black Lotus Clan, Ninja-Esoteric Level 1 Black Lotus Clan. Each TP represents a series of skills and training that build upon the previous TP's.


 What do you think?
MDC

[Marc R]

good idea, need to normalize to a single currency first (i.e. DP vs TP)

[markc]

good idea, need to normalize to a single currency first (i.e. DP vs TP)

 I agree and the Talent Points to DP is an age old question.
MDC

[providence13]

There was at least one rule I liked from the MAC. 1 BO can reduce the TP by 1/2.

Outside of the MAC, this is pretty expensive, IMO.

I like the idea of quantifying it to DP.

[Marc R]

I think it's 1:10 in RMFRP, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

[RandalThor]

I think it's 1:10 in RMFRP, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

That seems about right right, though the Mixed Man has 5 BO and 55 TP, so there is a little more math apparently.

[Ecthelion]

What do you think?

In my experience players tended to ignore their own PCs' Flaws during the game while they of course usually make full use of the Talents. That's why I would rather remove Flaws from the game completely (or make them at least optional), just as it was done in HARP. For this reason I would rather not introduce a rule whereby a player could get another benefit for his character (reduced DP costs) for a Flaw that most often gets swept under the rug during the game.

Just my 2 cents

[Thom @ ICE]

That's where an experienced GM who keeps tight controls on the flaws is required, but even with that I generally agree with you.  Flaws for benefits is often (not always) just another form of min/max'ing.  I'd rather play where the benefits have their own costs and flaws are something built into the character concept and without cost or bonus.

[markc]

There was at least one rule I liked from the MAC. 1 BO can reduce the TP by 1/2.

Outside of the MAC, this is pretty expensive, IMO.

I like the idea of quantifying it to DP.

 Yes this is a great rule that I use often and allow players to use once during PC gen, but they can spend another 10 TP to use it again (ie 20 TP instead of 10) at another level. So for example I am talking about level 1 and then  level 2, as I generally start PC's at higher levels (3-5).


MDC

[markc]

That's where an experienced GM who keeps tight controls on the flaws is required, but even with that I generally agree with you.  Flaws for benefits is often (not always) just another form of min/max'ing.  I'd rather play where the benefits have their own costs and flaws are something built into the character concept and without cost or bonus.

Thom and Etchelion;
 I agree but in general I think oaths and such are very general Flaws that can be enforced with significant problems associated for breaking them. I also have generally reduced the vale of various Flaws TP value so it is not as big of a problem as some might think. Also as the GM I create the TP's so I can rule out players abusing the rules also I am not afraid to say no to players., ie just because it says so in the book does not mean it dose not have erratum (correct word? given to me by Chrome) or allowed in my game.


 MDC   

[pastaav]

In my experience players tended to ignore their own PCs' Flaws during the game while they of course usually make full use of the Talents. That's why I would rather remove Flaws from the game completely (or make them at least optional), just as it was done in HARP. For this reason I would rather not introduce a rule whereby a player could get another benefit for his character (reduced DP costs) for a Flaw that most often gets swept under the rug during the game.

I agree. Many flaws makes great story element...but then let them be story elements and not ways to mess with the cost balance of stuff.

[Thom @ ICE]

Markc - As per your own words, you are the experienced GM who is not afraid to keep tight control.  In that case, all the best, and have fun with the flaws.  It's not my cup of tea, but then again, RM is the kind of game that is open to lots of options and no two RM campaigns are likely to use the same rules.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I allow a player to gain extra Talent Points for taking flaws.. up to half the Talent Points that they recieve normally. I allow 10 Talent points to be used to halve the cost of purchasing a Training Package*

e.g a player who recieves 50 gets an extra 25 Talent Points if they take an extra 25+ points of flaws.

I do vet the flaws taken and the purchase of Talents quite heavily though.

*Using RAW this option would normally be quite an inefficent/expensive option, but then again, I treat ranks acquired in this fashion as being affected by Everyman and Occupational skills...which isn't RAW

[Marc R]

I think the key element with flaws was expressed by Defendi a while back, to paraphrase:

If it doesn't limit, it's worth nothing.

I find the instances where flaws get out of hand are where people choose flaws specifically just to get the points, but engineer them so they never come up. . . like choosing magical flaws for a fighter concept you have no intentions to ever use magic with.

[providence13]

I think the key element with flaws was expressed by Defendi a while back, to paraphrase:

If it doesn't limit, it's worth nothing.
.. like choosing magical flaws for a fighter concept you have no intentions to ever use magic with.

Hopefully a crafty GM can apply the penalty to Attunement or other. Most Fighters will want to Attune to something..

[markc]

I think the key element with flaws was expressed by Defendi a while back, to paraphrase:

If it doesn't limit, it's worth nothing.

I find the instances where flaws get out of hand are where people choose flaws specifically just to get the points, but engineer them so they never come up. . . like choosing magical flaws for a fighter concept you have no intentions to ever use magic with.

I agree, that is why in general I have drastically lowered the TP of flaws and have reserved the right to void any flaw a player has picked.
MDC

[David Johansen]

On the relative cost, the race creation rules have it on a sliding scale.  If I have one complaint against RMSS it's the bloody sliding scales they used to rationalize various imbalances.  Particularly the one introduced to the Training Package costs later on.

[markc]

On the relative cost, the race creation rules have it on a sliding scale.  If I have one complaint against RMSS it's the bloody sliding scales they used to rationalize various imbalances.  Particularly the one introduced to the Training Package costs later on.

 Can you explain this a bit more? (Or maybe it is just too early for me to be reading posts.)
MDC

[David Johansen]

I'd have to dig out GM Law to reproduce the chart and we're packing for a move but the more skill ranks a race has the cheaper they get.  This is similar to how Training Packages were re-done by Tim.  The old ICE actually changed the calculation used for Training Packages over time.  Originally it was 3/4 base costs but they set up a scale that made hugely expensive packages an even bigger bargain.

[markc]

  I remember that the cost was officially changed to 3/4 of actual profession skill cost from some other formula, and that there used to be a sheet in the vault with all of the new official TP costs.


MDC