Alternate 'disadvantage' approach?

[Taltos]

We are ramping up for our Firefly based DitV setting and in going through the first conflicts I had a thought on a way to handle disadvantaged situations that I have not used, but was curious what everyone thought.

The best example would be something like a character being drunk during a conflict. If a character is inebriated, their judgements and abilities would be impaired. I would never reduce their dice as "punishment", but what if their opponent gained a 1d6 since the character was inebriated?

Or just skip situational conditions like this as too much clutter?

[Lance D. Allen]

Skip them because they're not the point, rather.

DitV isn't about modeling realistically. I mean.. if you get "injured", you get the opportunity to take d4 traits.. How exactly is that really a disadvantage? It makes you more powerful, albeit more complicated. And so long as the group isn't calling BS, you can pull out improvised d6 item after d6 item. I have had the misfortune of having to sit through a conflict where the two participants were calling in their hats pulling pictures out, etc. in an argument where neither was willing to escalate. I say misfortune because it was an interpersonal conflict that made them keep going rather than one that had to do with the game, and because it was getting pretty spurious, but I was the only one who thought so.

So here's an alternative idea for situational modifiers... If the situation calls for it, allow them to take free d4 traits. Such as "drunk, 1d4".

[Darren Hill]

I also don't have much interest in modelling disadvantages in DitV realistically, but this particular situation strikes me as similar to the furniture rule.
You can say you grab a shovel or a chair and (say0 smash it over soemone's head, getting a 1d6 bonus for it - assuming you're in an environment where shovels and chairs are likely to be present. Being drunk or other psychological conditions might be handled in a similar fashion. "He's drunk, so I use his drunkenness against him."
Sure, it's a more nebulous, but strangely attractive.

[Taltos]

That is a great way to look at it, and lets the idea find room to work without violating the rules.
Thanks!

[Moreno R.]

What Darren said.  But I would like to add that even the Drunk Character could have a BONUS of some dice for his drunkenness.

This is exlicited in the rules if the character is drunk because he has taken fallout (i.e.: "short-term fallout, take a 1d4 trait for the following conflict. I choose "drunkenness", my character is going to drown his sorrows in a bottle of whisky for some time"). In this case, the fallout-given trait is ALWAYS a bonus dice, no matter if it is a disadvantage or an advantage.

The same thing apply if you use an "object". Vincent said you can even use people as "objects" in conflicts. Nothing in the rules said that there "object-people" should WANT to help you, no more that a barrel should want to help you. You can use someone who want to hit you with a bottle (that is not one of your opponent in the conflict, but a npc you added in your "see") to take care of another opponent (you duck and they hit each other. Very usual in spaghetti western movies in scenes with a free-for-all in a saloon)

In a story, ANYTHING you can say about a character give that character more importance, more "screen time", more weight. They are always bonus. There is no trait in DitV that act as a "malus"

(with the caveat that a d4 bonus tends to make the life of the character who receive it "more interesting" in the Chinese sense...)

When I read the rules the first time this seemed strange to me. I was more used to the usual sim differentiation between "advantages" and "disadvantages". But after trying it in play I think it work GREAT.  When a player can have a BONUS if he says that his character is blinded for a time, or hurt, it has a really liberating effect on the way they play (and so we had a Female Dog who, like a sort of lady justice, gave out judgment of the sinners wearing a blindfold...)