New Gifts & Flaws

[Jake Norwood]

Another interesting opposite would be a minor flaw Chaste (for priests, knights and virgins, etc). Where the character is constantly hit on, but cannot or will not resond for some reason. This seems like not getting involved, but in actuality, it's just getting involved badly which can lead to all sorts of fun.

Hmmm, Tease? That one's bound to get you into trouble, and is very Arthurian in taste (not sure if it fits TROS).

Chasteness is allready handled under the "Vow" flaw. I like Tease, though. I had a lot of Mallory/Arthur floating n my head when I wrote TROS, so maybe it is appropriate.

Jake

[Valamir]

I think the advantages and disadvantages given by Gifts and Flaws should be ones that don't directly map to being able to simply take a particular skill, or change an attribute in either direction.  Unlike games such as GURPS, there really isn't a currency that allows you to trade around different aspect of your characters.  The priorities that you choose for a character should mean something, and if you can start using gifts to move the "points" between the different facets, that weakens the importance of those choices.  

I think you're spot on there Dan.  This kind of cross currency almost always leads to character Generation Loop Holes, like players finding its more cost effective to boost their WP using a gift and save the attribute points for something else.

[Ron Edwards]

Dan,

Dead on correct. I was getting nervous about some of the proposed Gifts and Flaws for just that reason.

For example, one thing that irritates me in many games is when there's an attribute that models Willpower ... and then there's an advantage called something like "Grit" or "Strong-willed" that gives you a bonus of some kind for Willpower rolls.

Hence, if you want to play a bad-ass Willpower dude, you have to get the high attribute score and pay for the advantage, both. Basically, they've priced "being a strong-willed guy" higher than being, say, a fast or strong guy.

Some games go the next step and set up an advantage that corresponds to each attribute (or derived attribute), such that if you want to be the fast guy, you need high attribute(s) plus the requisite Fast Guy advantages; same for the smart guy, same for the strong-willed guy, etc. What's going on here is that everyone basically must optimize in whatever directions they go, and hence what were supposed to be customizing-points (in the advantages) end up being obligatory attribute-boosters.

Best,
Ron

[Brian Leybourne]

Eminently fine with me. If you want to PDF 'em with the TROS fonts, header/footers, etc so they look similar to the books, feel free. Otherwise I can send you a PDF with them already formatted in the same generic layout (two column, similar font).

PDfing them hadn't occured to me (I was planning on just html) but it's a pretty cool idea now that you mention in. Anyone else want them that way?

Jake

The only problem with that is it means either a) you have to redo the PDF every time there are other fan-based gifts/flaws or b) everyone who puts in giftf/flaws will mean another (different) pdf to download. I think it would be better to just have a page on the webpage that has all the fan-submitted gifts and flaws, and you can just keep adding new ones to it as you get them. The page could be nicely formatted in two-column format etc, so as a Seneschal I can just browse to it, print off the page, and voila.

Brian.

[Jake Norwood]

Excellent point.

[Lyrax]

I don't know about all of you, but I disapprove of the Gifts/Flaws that modify a statistic every time you made a check  (Iron-Willed, Shock-Resistant).  Perhaps you could have a Gift called Dedicated that would modify WP/TO rolls IF the character was defending the thing he was dedicated to.  But then again, that's just like SAs, so there's no need for it.

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, so it (the Iron Will Gift) was a bad idea, then. I concede the point to superior logic.

So the opposite of lecherous should be (forgive me if this already exists) the minor gift Romantic. This allows a character improved chances to get involved with people. A lech is someone who wants to get involved but isn't good at it. A romantic likes getting involved, and succeeds regularly. In both cases the character gets involved.

A clarification on this point, though.. The name "Lecherous" is misleading. It's effects are simply that it is more difficult for the character with the Flaw to resist amorous advances or a pretty face, resulting in higher TNs when attempting to do so. James Bond was cited as an example of a character with this Flaw. One's actual ability to "get involved" is not based on the Flaw, but more on the player RPing the character, and the character's Social Attribute. Hence, someone could be "Lecherous" and be really good at it (James Bond) or really bad at it (your typical Dirty Old Man).

[Bob Richter]

Snores

(Minor Flaw)

Character emits loud and disturbing noises when asleep -- all unwittingly. This can be difficult for friends who sleep lightly, and may even make him easier to find when asleep.

[Mike Holmes]

A clarification on this point, though.. The name "Lecherous" is misleading. It's effects are simply that it is more difficult for the character with the Flaw to resist amorous advances or a pretty face, resulting in higher TNs when attempting to do so. James Bond was cited as an example of a character with this Flaw. One's actual ability to "get involved" is not based on the Flaw, but more on the player RPing the character, and the character's Social Attribute. Hence, someone could be "Lecherous" and be really good at it (James Bond) or really bad at it (your typical Dirty Old Man).

Good point. And not having read the game, I wouldn't know that there was a Social Attribute (didn't come up in any combat examples I read, anyhow). My point was not that the Romantic Gift was a good idea (obviously not, it's covered by lecherous + Social Att), but rather that all such traits should compel story, not allow players to avoid it. BTW, to give credit, this is a Ron Edwards truism.

(Now I'm off to hunt down a copy so I can more enlightenedly respond here)

Mike