Useless Traits?

[Chris Peterson]

So Chris - is this making sense to you?

How's it sitting for you that I gain substantial mechanical advantage (2d10) from my character's substantial in-game disadvantage ("I'm blind as a bat")?

-Vincent

I am definitely more comfortable with these oddly useful traits, though some traits still seem so universally applicable that my Suspension of Disbelief flickers and I just see raw dice mechanics instead of character actions. <:)

thanks!
chris

[Andrew Morris]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure my players would veto "Ready for any situation 3d10" if anyone tried to put it on their sheet. But then again, I can't remember if the veto rule is in the book, or something we've tacked on.

[lumpley]

Group vetoing is in the book, under "establish local standards by following the lead of the person with the best, strictest tastes."

-Vincent

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I call it the "bullshit rule".

I've never seen anyone use it in Dogs, Under the Bed, or Shock:, though apparently it was applied a little too harshly in one game of UtB. It's a touchy thing, and I'm trying to figure out a better way to negotiate that stuff.

I suspect a strict definition of the world would come from any strict delineation of Traits, and that can really only come from play, not from the text, unless the designer's being overbearing.

[dunlaing]

"Ready for any situation" 3d4 would be a pretty cool trait.

[Transit]

Some suggestions for other "universally applicable" traits:

"Look! Behind you!" 1d6

"Plays well with others" 4d4

"I'm really lucky whenever I want to be" 4d6

"Makes a mighty fine cup of coffee" 2d4

"Spontaneous and unexpected pie fight" 8d4

"Your shoelace is untied" 6d6

"I have some extra dice here in the pocket of my Dog's Coat" 6d6

"The King of Life loves me more than you" 8d8

"I cheat at Dogs in the Vineyard" 11d20

[Kintara]

Some suggestions for other "universally applicable" traits:

"Look! Behind you!" 1d6

"Plays well with others" 4d4

"I'm really lucky whenever I want to be" 4d6

"Makes a mighty fine cup of coffee" 2d4

"Spontaneous and unexpected pie fight" 8d4

"Your shoelace is untied" 6d6

"I have some extra dice here in the pocket of my Dog's Coat" 6d6

"The King of Life loves me more than you" 8d8

"I cheat at Dogs in the Vineyard" 11d20

The funny thing about those is that they would each work in their own way, well, mostly.  I mean if your intent was to make your character silly, then some of those will encourage you to play the character that way.  Applicability means something, but if it's universally applicable and used constantly, it's also going to reinforce the style of that trait on your character that much more.  "I'm really lucky whenever I want to be." is a good example.  It sounds twinky, but it also definitely has thematic ramifications in a Dogs game that might be pretty interesting.  It might be more "useful," but it also creates a pull on your character's story that could easily mean something very interesting for everyone.

Besides, "winning" isn't all it's cracked up to be in DitV. ;)

[Darren Hill]

Most of those universally applicable traits are perfectly acceptable traits to take in Dogs, local group permitting.
(Probably not "I cheat at dogs")
My favourite of this sort from an actual game was
"Tumbleweed rolls by: 2d6"

[DevP]

"I cheat at Dogs in the Vineyard" 11d20 wouldn't work... unless the Faithful had a game called "Dogs in the Vineyard" where people play out the epic lives of Watchdogs, and it's a common pasttime or more whimsical youths and adults. If your character was the type to play this game-version but cheat there... I think I have a headache.

[Transit]

"I cheat at Dogs in the Vineyard" 11d20 wouldn't work... unless the Faithful had a game called "Dogs in the Vineyard" where people play out the epic lives of Watchdogs, and it's a common pasttime or more whimsical youths and adults. If your character was the type to play this game-version but cheat there... I think I have a headache.

Yeah, they were all meant as humorous suggestions, that one in particular since it references the game from within the game and uses D20s.

[Simon Kamber]

My favourite of this sort from an actual game was
"Tumbleweed rolls by: 2d6"

Awesome trait!

Personally, I'm fine with easily applicable traits as long as they, as Kintara said, creates a pull on your characters story.

What I'd watch out with isn't the traits that are hard to use though. It's my experience that some simply don't turn out as the player intended them. In these cases, it seems reasonable to allow the player to change them. I mean, if a player has a trait that he hasn't used for the whole first session, it seems fair that he's allowed to change it.

[Vaxalon]

This ties to something I ran into when running the one-shot in LA.

The players were in a big final conflict with the cultists and were running out of dice... they had rolled in every trait they had, and they STILL were going to lose... when i suggested that they could use some of their free relationship dice, and declare a relationship with the cultists.

"What, you mean that we like them?  I don't understand."

"No, I mean, like, "I hate Brother Zachariah's guts."

They blanched.  "Man.  I hope it doesn't come to that.  That really... says something about the character, doesn't it?"

"Yah.  Is it worth winning, for your character to let the seed of hatred sprout in his soul?"

"Damn.  Doesn't have to be hatred, though, you know."

"Oh, of course.  Whatever relationship you want is fine... but whatever it is, it'll say something about your character, to do so."

[Chris Peterson]

The players were in a big final conflict with the cultists and were running out of dice... they had rolled in every trait they had, and they STILL were going to lose... when i suggested that they could use some of their free relationship dice, and declare a relationship with the cultists.

If the character kills Brother Zachariah, can he "sell" that Relationship for its dice? What are the rules for ending a relationship? Is it easier (or even more difficult) if that person is dead? hmm..

[lumpley]

There are no rules for removing a relationship from your sheet or somehow unassigning its dice.

-Vincent

[oliof]

One of the more grating tasks was one character, Br. Jakob,  that had "I have a task here 2d10". At one time in the game I asked the player to define what this task was for this town. He did so, and funnily was revived by another character, calling Br. Jakob by his name. The two final Raises fighting for this character involved shouting "You still have a task here!" and breathing back life into the mouth of dying Br. Jakob.

Regards,
     Harald