Topic: Talent Law?

[Arioch]

Lets take "Not Subtle" as an example. Now if the heavily armored fighter or mage takes it, it can be seen as min/maxing as its hardly a flaw since they rarely (if ever) are in need of sneaking, and its not really a flaw a sneaky character (thief/rogue) will take as it limits what he is good at, which kinda goes against the concept of such a character.

Flaws that don't give any disvantages shouldn't give any point. So IMHO a heavy armored fighter without any rank in subterfuge would not gain anything by picking the Flaw Subtle.
OTOH I agree with you: talents and flaws that just give bonuses/penalities are not very fun, and can be easly abused by players.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I disagree, perhaps it was the reason that the fighter became a fighter, because he was naturally noisy.

Although I agree with the point that a flaw may be taken by a player because it just doesn't hamper the character in ANY way. Lets see. If you are an Arms user then then the same could be said when taking virtually any flaws that affect magic use.

And in such a case, the GM simply banning the flaw from being taken in the first place is the probably the best option. In all such case always insist that there is some rationale behind the flaw. If there is no good rationale then discount the points gained from the flaw.

The "Not subtle" flaw will be more of a general inconvience, because there is always the chance that a mage or a fighter may want to move quietly and they always have the option to attempt it regardless of thier skill level. The same could be said of flaws like "Klutz".

A fighter with no spells simply doesn't have the ability to do what is being penalised...therefore the flaw is not a penalty. 

[jolt]

I like the core rule regarding Flaws/Disadvanatges that The Hero System uses.  Basically, if a disadvantage doesn't actually hinder a character, then it isn't worth any points.  Otherwise, you're just giving away points for free.

jolt

[mocking bird]

DC Heroes was the same way.  For example if you are vulnerable to water attacks then you can't take the disadvantage of being afraid of water.

[yammahoper]

C'mon y'all.  A GM needs to be flexible yet demanding.  If a fighter takes "not subtle" as a flaw, then the GM needs to create a situation were the fighter will have to remove the armor and rely on stealth every now and then.  Any flaw can be brought into play with a little imagination.

Sure, the player who is "heat intolerant" will hate the desert adventure, but did he honestly NOT see it coming when he created the PC and its background and choose that flaw?

If the flaw is allowed, it is the GM's responsibility to see it manifest in the game, not the players.

This is not to say a well balanced set of talents and flaws are not desired but the real problem seems to be more a problem of GM's not taking advantage of talents and flaws to challenge the player and create interesting events in the story.

Still, some setting or story archs may not allow certain flaws to have any real impact, in which case the GM needs to forbid them.  An example in my game, all non spell users recieve "power burn" as an inherient flaw.  Magic is dangerous and I try to convey that feeling to all players, because that is the sort of setting I like.  It also results in non spell users being less than eager to seek out tons of daily items (note that an inteligent item that cast spells doesn't cause power burn, providing a good reason for faithful types to allow their soul to be bound to a magic artifact, or the less scrupulous from binding spirits against their will).

lynn

[mocking bird]

Need to come up with a 'Rule 0.5'.  "While the GM should be able to ignore the rules, he should also not then complain about not enforcing nor holding players accountable to them." 

Corollary - Players will attempt to take advantage of the rules to the point of abuse whenever possible.

Or something like that...

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

Lets take "Not Subtle" as an example. Now if the heavily armored fighter or mage takes it, it can be seen as min/maxing as its hardly a flaw since they rarely (if ever) are in need of sneaking, and its not really a flaw a sneaky character (thief/rogue) will take as it limits what he is good at, which kinda goes against the concept of such a character.

Flaws that don't give any disvantages shouldn't give any point. So IMHO a heavy armored fighter without any rank in subterfuge would not gain anything by picking the Flaw Subtle.
OTOH I agree with you: talents and flaws that just give bonuses/penalities are not very fun, and can be easly abused by players.

I do not agree.

As a player and as a GM, I played games where fighters tried to surprise their enemies : ambushes, hiding behind the corner of a street, trying to hide from a superior enemy...

As a gm, I try to have players get out of their "set role". It is not mandatory that a heavily armoured fighter runs headfront into conflict whenever possible. He *has* the option to use subtlety. Hiding in armour IS difficult. The not subtle flaw makes it harder ? then it is worth points.

An I sure know that I wouldn't want this flaw for a fighting character.

[Arioch]

Ok, the Fighter + Not Subtle example was just an example...
Perhaps it was not a very good example but the meaning behind it wasn't "fighters should never pick "not subtle" as a flaw", but "if you, as a GM, feel that a player is taking a flaw that will never come into play and/or will not hinder the character at all, then you should tell the player that the flaw will not give him any talent point". Sounds better?

[yammahoper]

Ok, the Fighter + Not Subtle example was just an example...
Perhaps it was not a very good example but the meaning behind it wasn't "fighters should never pick "not subtle" as a flaw", but "if you, as a GM, feel that a player is taking a flaw that will never come into play and/or will not hinder the character at all, then you should tell the player that the flaw will not give him any talent point". Sounds better?

Yep

lynn

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Or better yet, have "Flaws" give no Talent Points, but give some other rewards when they come into play (extra DP the next level, etc...)

The problem with Flaws is that a player usually gets the benefit BEFORE the flaw comes into play, and then they will try to avoid having it come into play once that benefit is gained.

Therefore, the solution is to give the rewards AFTER the benefit comes into play..... 

[mocking bird]

Which is why flaws that either will never come into play or be easily avoided should not be allowed - or at least should be considered in role-play rather than have some mechanic (skill) bonus.

However providing the 'bonus' when the flaw comes into play is also problemantic if the flaw points were indeed used at char-gen to get corresponding talents.  And if you separate the two into different areas - talents at chargen but flaws during play not to mention if flaw rewards happen from play why are they not available to all characters - you could really get a confusing mess imo. 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Yup, which is a primary reason why ICE never included Flaws of any sort in HARP. Better to avoid the situation. If a player wants a character with flaws, that is their choice, but they won't get rewarded for it either, thus moving flaws solely into the realm of role-playing. 

[markc]

Also reember that misdirection can be a big part or relieving others of their valuables. So watch the right hand not the left.

MDC

My, my.  You sound like a politician

lynn

 I have been acused of worse, a GM.
MDC

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

Yup, which is a primary reason why ICE never included Flaws of any sort in HARP. Better to avoid the situation. If a player wants a character with flaws, that is their choice, but they won't get rewarded for it either, thus moving flaws solely into the realm of role-playing. 

It is logical. But sometimes, a handicap will have positive effects.

For example, a blind man has heightened senses for hearing, touching or smelling. Someone who had an arm cut will be very dexterous with his remaining hand.

Pretty much, just like the "blessed by aa war god" HAS downsides, being blind has benefits.

The problem is that the talents and flaws in rolemaster are an incitation to bargain. As a gm I decided that it would not happen in my games and so far I enjoy the talents and flaws because it gives depth and variety to the game. But I never really followed the rules, I made up my own.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

For example, a blind man has heightened senses for hearing, touching or smelling. Someone who had an arm cut will be very dexterous with his remaining hand.

Except that in Talent Law, those are not combined into a single entry, but spread out over several entries, thus it is possible to get the good stuff without the bad. -- according to the rules.

The problem with a talent/flaw system IS that the flaws often get abused through being ignored or forgotten by players. Almost everybody who has posted here has posted something in that regard.

The exceptions are those who play the system like it is supposed to be played.

Too many GMs have to make house rules -- that alone says that they are broken. And the broken part is the flaw side of things, where players take flaws only to get more talent points, and then ignore or forget about the flaws taken.

ICE recognized this problem back when we were writing HARP. Hence, no flaws in its system.

[markc]

 I think flaws have a place in my game. But the big thing is to make sure that my idea of the flaw and the players ida of the flaw match. Often times my and thier ideas do not match and they get rid of the flaw.

MDC

[David Johansen]

I like flaws and feel they are more characterful than talents.  I don't like the talent point system at all and prefer background options.  Talent Law is actually more balanced on the items than the core table, but the original RMSS talent appendix is more balanced on the actual talents.  People put two BOP into the items chart and walk away with a +20 shield and armour, that's 40 DB straight up.  (It's no +200 OB though)

[Arioch]

The bad thing about the talents in RMFRP Character Law IMHO is that the cost of those which give a bonus to a skill/category were not distributed following the same logic for all talents. So we have some talents that for less points give a higher bonus than others, maybe even to a larger group of skills.
To solve this problem I think that I'll use just the "Skilled" talent and ban all other talents giving similar bonuses.

[markc]

Arioch,
 That is where I started and then decided on the talents I wanted and repriced them based on the base idea.

MDC

[Arioch]

Sounds a long work, but probably it's the best thing to do. Well I have nothing to do this summer save for my thesis so...