Buying certain Traits that seem negative or useless. [Archive]

Calypso

07-06-2004, 09:42 AM

The way I see it, if you say you have traits and act on them, they become "traits" over time. Rather than getting Artha for them, you advance towards having the "trait."

Besides, there's no such thing as a "negative" trait per se. Calypso has "cursed," but it's in such a way that it really only curses everyone who meets him. Personally, I wish I had an extra-long tongue. It would be a good conversation starter, the ladies might take note, and I could take over the band Kiss if Gene Simmons ever died (God forbid).

Taking "one armed" or "aura of stench" might seem like a disadvantage, but a one-armed man would inherently have more strength in that arm, and might be eligible for a bonus steel point if the story of "stumpy" impresses the GM sufficiently. And aura of stench is annoying when trying to hide from orcs, but comes in handy when your party is searching for you after the orcs abduct you.

The thing is, disadvantages aren't really disadvantages unless your character exists only for combat. And if that's the case, I'd say "useless 99% of the time" might be a trait for such a character to be forced to take.

Rindu

07-06-2004, 10:13 AM

The way I see it, if you say you have traits and act on them, they become "traits" over time. Rather than getting Artha for them, you advance towards having the "trait."

Ah, so one only gets Artha for RPing BITs, and not good role-playing in general?

If that's the case, then that's cool. It would make Rewarding much easier, and less subjective. It can be hard to pin down what "good roleplaying" is. If I'm understanding you, the Reward mechanic in BW (Artha) encourages fidelity to a character concept, rather than "good roleplaying" per se. I suppose that as long as one is striving to be in-character, then you are roleplaying well.

Kublai

07-06-2004, 11:59 AM

Your last comment best sums up the intent of the Traits, Rindu. You only get Artha for playing your BITs, which is especially true when using the new Artha system (which is far better, imo). Sure you can say you are obese and play you are obese, but if you don't have the Trait, you won't be getting the Artha for that - not until the trait vote comes around, at least.

eruditus

07-06-2004, 02:23 PM

A recent appraoch I took on this was that your average dirty peasant (and his noble counterparts) are largely alike and do not stand out in a crowd in any real noticable way. Your trait total is your means to allow your character to be different BEFORE game play. Its an abstract that says "this person begin his adventuring career more unlike the norm than his neighbor." And then, as mentioned, if you play outside of those restriction then your really not contributing anything to the whole scope of the game and thus aren't getting Artha for roleplaying that claustrophobia that's not in your BITs.

Of course, one could argue that "I may just want to write certain flaws into my Beliefs and Instincts and use my trait points for more 'meaningful' traits. That's an aceptable perspective (instead of taking the "snooty" trait you have a belief that says "The peasantry are there to be trodden on, not spoken to.") You only hve so much of either. besides, you have so much more of your adventuring career ahead of you :D If the player wants the character to have abnormally long tongue then by all means work out situations in-game where that dream can become a reality :D

Of course a GM is always the final arbiter for such things and if you talk him into the extra tongue length with stacked traits then more power to ya but understand that its only through that GM perogative that the player is working outside the rules of the game.

Rindu

07-06-2004, 02:32 PM

Of course a GM is always the final arbiter for such things and if you talk him into the extra tongue length with stacked traits then more power to ya but understand that its only through that GM perogative that the player is working outside the rules of the game.

no i GM. And yet, we hear a GM.

I'm just learning the game, I want to make sure I understand the rules and design philosophies. I'm introducing it to others, and there's no "game" going right now, so there is no GM arbitration to rely on now.

Hey, what about Traits and Beliefs that sort of overlap? Bad idea? I'm working on an Elf with the World-Weary trait; I was thinking of adding, as beliefs, "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man," or, "The world is a cold, harsh place." The second one overlaps with World-Weary; bad idea?

Kublai

07-06-2004, 02:45 PM

Overlapping isn't a bad idea if it supports your concept. Traits and Beliefs are used in different ways during gameplay. Using the new Artha system, which I highly recommend, Traits earn your Fate points while a Belief is often tied into a goal, which will earn you Persona points. The two will support each other and certainly make your characters responses easier to judge.

Rindu

07-06-2004, 02:52 PM

Ah, ok. I'll go read these new Artha rules before I ask any more questions. :lol:

Thanks.

SirEktar

07-06-2004, 03:50 PM

Ah, so one only gets Artha for RPing BITs, and not good role-playing in general?

If that's the case, then that's cool. It would make Rewarding much easier, and less subjective. It can be hard to pin down what "good roleplaying" is. If I'm understanding you, the Reward mechanic in BW (Artha) encourages fidelity to a character concept, rather than "good roleplaying" per se. I suppose that as long as one is striving to be in-character, then you are roleplaying well.

The primary reason for BITs are to provide a framework on which to roleplay. General rp'ing does factor into this somewhat (see the Artha awards). If you roleplay something outside of your BITs, while you don't get Artha from them, you establish character elements for future traits. Once you get those traits, the Artha can flow from them.

(All IMO) :)

SirEktar

07-06-2004, 03:54 PM

But couldn't you just say that your character has an abnormally long tongue? Why do you have to pay for it? Are you forbidden from having "trait-like" characteristics that you did not pay for?

Paraphrasing from the character burner:
"If you want to play someone with an abnormally long tongue, pay for it and get on with it". Paying for negative traits should be viewed as paying trait points so that you can play the character you want to play. If you didn't really want that trait, then you shouldn't purchase it.

(All, IMO) :)

eruditus

07-20-2004, 04:27 PM

Overlapping BITs has its strengths and weaknesses. The danger is, of course, creating a character that is too focused. Creating very one dimensional characters can really hurt a campaign unless the game becomes about that character's one dimension. They do this in the Bond series. In newer Bond movies (good or bad) they begin to question Bond's MO - his approach to spying, living and women.

Playing the man born with a gun in his hand is cool but eventually you have to reconcile what sort of person is he. Cold and humorless only goes so far before he eventually has to decide is he a hero or a villain or is your game about the gray areas between. Those questions should still come up and not go withouts its consequences.

Additionally, you limit the scope of your character's actions by limiting his access to Artha by only giving him a slim margin of actions for which he gets Artha.

The strength to overlapping is that your choices are more limited and easier to make and if the campaign is aimed in the direction of your character's BITs then it should be easy to get Artha.

Also, a very focused character leaves room for growth. I tend to like to spread it around a little and cover multiple areas of the individuals life to really flesh out who they are and what makes them tick. I'd like to add that I usually see to it that PCs have related BITs so they play off of each other throughout the game. If one PC has a belief about his philosophies on slavery but no other PC has any expressed view then its up to the GM to introduce stimuli and then invariably either most players will take the contemporary perspective or agree with the one that has the expressed Belief.

Claymore

07-20-2004, 05:45 PM

Negative Traits tend to be broader and allow more chances to roleplay, allowing more Artha to be gained during play. That all said, my players still did not like the concept.

What I have done in my campaign is lower the cost of all Traits considered "Negative" to 1 point apiece. A character's starting Artha is based upon how many "negative" Traits he burned during creation.

A character with 0 Negative Traits starts with a single point of Fate.
A character with 1 Negative Trait starts with 3 points of Fate.
A character with 2 Negative Traits start with 4 points of Fate and 1 point of Persona.
A character starting with 3 Negative Traits starts with 5 points of Fate, 2 Points of Persona, and 1 point of Deeds.

That's how we do it.

-Claymore

Thunder_God

07-22-2004, 12:19 AM

On http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=135364 I madea post where I questioned the same thing, and Luke asked me to post here, here are the relevant posts from said thread:

Thunder_God:A question, when a negative trait(EG Dull Fangs) has a point cost, you pay it or gain it back? If you pay for it, why?

Thor Olavsrud:This is a pretty common question. You always pay Trait points for Traits, no matter what their effect. You can't save them; they exist solely to create the character that you envision.

The most basic answer as to why you would spend points on "negative traits" is that you are awarded Artha for playing up traits that affect you negatively. Some traits may give you some very slight mechanical advantages, but you are far more likely to be able to use so-called "negative" traits to gain Artha.

Thunder_God:I figured the "Character I envision", but that can be done without the mechanical minuses/bonuses. The Artha makes sense even if it's something I generally dislike(being given bonuses only for screwing with yourself), I know in BW you also get rewarded for using skills, so it's (more of an) ok, just something I understand and personally dislike.

Now, after reading this thread I've come upon a Dichotomy; on one end there's the call for RP based choices, and on the other hand you have the call for mechanical solutions and thinking.

If I "need" the Trait for my character design and concept, then I should not be limited by an arbitary number of points given to me in the creation process, I should be able to make whatever is best for the Roleplay.

However, the solution(or rather answer) provided was that I "need" these Traits since they facilitate me gaining Artha, a mechanical way of thinking. So I'm encouraged to take mechanical handicaps in order to later enhance my character mechanically? This becomes exactly like "Flaws/Drawbacks" where negative traits GIVE me points, because what I really am doing(in essence, not in form) is taking handicaps in order to actually give me MORE power, not less.

I also generally dislike systems where bonuses are given for screwing with yourself, it supports a dichotomy between Player and Player-Character as the player may do things which do not fit the character concept in order to win the metagame, the out of game, award, not the in game and logical award. It may also encourage angsty/COMPLETELY screwed up concept merely for the benefits given, mechanically, and drama-queen style of play, which are supported by this style of reward. BW also gives awards for stuff you do which helps your character so is not wholly in this category.

luke

07-22-2004, 12:55 AM

Hi T_G, thanks for stopping by the forums.

Now I need to clear the air on this issue. I do not subscribe to idea that a character is more of an artha sponge because he's fraught with negative traits. In fact, neither does the system.

The system merely states that you earn artha for using your traits in ways that make your character's life difficult or get him in trouble -- in other words, you create story with your traits, you get artha.

You can do that being heroic and forthright, you can do that being a limping, long-tongued freak.

This is not the only venue for earning artha, either. That's not the issue here, but I needed to state it.

So why take negative traits when your character can be nothing but goodness?

You may not want to, but many people out there simply like to play fucked up individuals. Crippled, twisted, bizarre, handicapped or wierd. Some people like their characters like that.

So in BW, I give them a choice and a venue to play them. Are they penalized? Sort of, but not really. Life's going to be a little harder for the character, but they knew that already. In fact, that's why they made the character the way they did. Are they given hordes of bennies to make up for their choice? No, that would be insulting.

Lastly, you said:
If I "need" the Trait for my character design and concept, then I should not be limited by an arbitary number of points given to me in the creation process, I should be able to make whatever is best for the Roleplay.

In BW you're given a limited amount of trait points to build your character. Using these points, you've got to choose what's really important to you about this character. We don't want an endless list of all his idiosyncracies, we only want the top three (or so).

By choosing these traits, you are playing the game. Not only are you abiding by the rules of play, but you are engaging in a social contract with your peers that says, "This is what my character is all about and how I want to play him." Taking traits just to twink and then playing your character a completely different way is breaking that social contract. Doing so risks the enjoyment of everyone at the table and can possibly lead to dysfunctional play.

The trait points aren't handed out arbitrarily, either. The player is free to choose lifepaths that give him the traits and points he wants. That's just one of the decisions that sculpts the character in the burning process.

anyway, I hope that helps.
-L

PS Bonus artha for negative traits?! Sheesh! :? Not in my games.

Thunder_God

07-22-2004, 01:05 AM

Let's look at a purely mechanical issue:
"Dull Fangs" for the Giant spider, let's throw out the "One arm so it's stronger really" and all of that, we can make up these explanations to fit everything, let's work with what we have: The Spider is average on all other fields(this is an example, we're allowed) but has "Dull Fangs", and he paid for it, why?

How does it come into play? It may or may not come into play where he's mocked for his "Gimpiness"(no insult intended to anyone), he may feel insecure, and I get that this is what is meant from a story point if I choose to make this one of his defining Traits, but from a mechanical position alone, why?

luke

07-22-2004, 01:14 AM

Well, when I made this character:

Ssyszik

23 year old Wyrd Weaver

Pe: B4(5), Wi: B5, Ag: B5, Sp: B5, Po: B3, Fo: B4

Hea: B4, Ste: B5, Ref: B5, MW: B9

Skills: Stealthy B2, Climbing B4, Orienteering B4, Forest-wise B2, Weaving B5, Wyrd-Weaver Training.

Web-Wyrds: Wyrd Call, Wyrd Cloak.

Traits: Alien, Eight-Eyed, Eight-Legged, Exoskeleton, Fangs, Keen Balance, Low Speech, Silk Spinner, Spider Sense, Virulent Venom and Wall Crawler plus Strand Runner, Silent, Dull Fangs and Paralytic Venom.

Instincts: Drop a drag line. Weave the Wyrd Cloak when in danger. Stall for time with witty banter.

Beliefs: Nothing satisfies like a good meal. Neighbors are bothersome—I need peace and quiet to think on the mysteries of life. All my life I’ve got the short end of the web, and only wyrd-weaving can balance the equation.

Lifepaths: Hatched in Air, Webling, Wandering Star, Fate-Spinner and Wyrd Weaver.

I felt that Dull Fangs was perfect for the concept. He never had an easy way of killing prey, thus he was forced to turn to Wyrd Weaving to find his place in life.

I like the idea that he can't rely on his "basic animal attack mode" to get him out of trouble. By choosing this trait for this particular character, I am forcing his development in a certain direction.

To me, that's exciting and cool.

Perhaps for you, you might choose Brutal Fangs and Powerful Chelicera?
;)

-L

Thunder_God

07-22-2004, 01:18 AM

luke

07-22-2004, 01:29 AM

You missed the question ;)

I understand perfectly how the RP tie-ins work, but they can be tied in to anything given a skilled enough story-weaver, I'm asking from a purely mechanical standpoint if it's not designed to "be worth it" or the Artha from BITs is supposed to balance it?

The purely mechanical side? This trait reduces the bonus from the Fangs common trait.

Mechanically, that's it -- for artha, biting, or whatever. No Power bonus, no artha bonus. That's what I chose for my character because it fit his concept.

I am not recompensed in anyway and there is no benefit, mechanically or spiritual, for choosing this trait.

I chose it purely because I wanted it. Do you see the difference here between BW and other games that use Merits/Flaws? Here it's a pure character choice. There is no balance in our character creation. Some characters get the shaft, some don't. But you choose what you want to play. If you don't want to choose "negative" traits for your character, then don't. You won't be penalized, and no one will look at you funny. But if you want play someone wretched, miserable or incompetent, I've got room for you, too!

Does that help?
-L

Thunder_God

07-22-2004, 01:52 AM

luke

07-22-2004, 02:07 AM

Yes, which brings us a full circle ;)

I understand this design point and personally disagree with it. I can shaft my character just fine, I just don't see why I need to pay for it, I want to shaft my character, I'll do it myself, with or without mechanical recompensations. It's not my flavour, even though I probably like it more(dislike it less ;)) than where people get recompensation for angst.

You're missing my point (and maybe even agreeing with me at the same time). If you do what you state you're going to do above, you're breaking the rules of the game. Your busting the social contract and possibly risking the fun of everyone at the table. That's uncool.

By purchashing traits with the points given that are important to your character concept, you're playing the game.

Buying lots of slick traits and then playing the degenerate ass is actually breaking the rules. It doesn't trigger armaggeddon or anything, but I'll bet you that your cool traits are voted off and your degenerate traits are voted in at the end of the adventure. And then you'd be back to square one. Usually (not always) it's better to just be honest about your concept and buy the appropriate traits. Your character will develop more smoothly.

Anyway, you've got to play the game to see how it works. This is very rarely a bump in gameplay. It's not like I try to hoodwink anyone into playing an ass of a character, nor do people who play against type get penalized. But they do lose their traits!

-L

Thunder_God

07-22-2004, 02:17 AM

I think we're agreeing :P

Obviously the contract comes first. I'm just saying that if(I can't be sure at this point for obvious reasons ;)) you get something without much effect(mechanical) or a purely negative mechanical effect, without compensation, the only difference from how things are now is that you get the Traits you need(want) to flesh out your concept(only the negative ones) for free, but also the same for all players. It's not as if you're getting something out of it, it may not even have any mechanical effect(for example, come up with Protruding canines so your speech is hard to follow), it's merely RP enhancing.

I just dislike the general idea of paying for negative aspects, but still, if changes are made I assume that it's discussed beforehand with everyone to maintain the agreement help by all parties involved in the game.

Thor Olavsrud

07-22-2004, 03:01 PM

PS Bonus artha for negative traits?! Sheesh! :? Not in my games.

Don't know if this was aimed at my comments, but figured I'd respond anyway. :lol:

If you read my point carefully, you'll see that I never suggested "negative" traits were an artha sponge. What I did say was that because you gain artha when your traits are used to make your character's life difficult, it is often easier to gain artha with "negative" traits.

Afterall, you are more likely to be able to put yourself into difficult situations with the Stinky trait than you are with the Child Prodigy trait. It's not that you CAN'T with the latter. It's just that the opportunities will be fewer.

eruditus

08-10-2004, 05:55 PM

Fact is that the common gaming climate has set up this idea that "I should get extra stuff if i am in any way hadicapped." This feeling is VERY pervasive and has been established early in the hobby.

If you look at it as "trait points are how different your character is from others" then those differences can be good and bad. Getting points for roleplaying potential traits is really just min-maxing. The rules are made to build a character and most people are so focused on the coolness of having a more powerful character because I have negative stuff that they fail to realize that its counter-intuitive in a logical sense, as compared to a gamist sense. You can't logically "build" a character by taking away points.

Keep in mind, also that some of these things can be fleshed out using Beliefs and Instincts as well as traits.

DarkeTwilight

08-11-2004, 03:15 AM

I think some people have failed to see Thors opinion. Who knows maybe I have also. But the way I understand it, and I do agree with him if this is the case. Is that He doesnt want points returned for negative traits. Its not the flaw/merit side. Where I took a flaw for x points so have x more to use. Its more like. I have a Char with the traits Charming, Comly and Dramatic. (mind you they may not be right in name/description but book is in the car and its late. Needless to say all positive traits.) Then there is no reson I cant take, for free with no expectation of gain, Unlucky and clumsy. ALL of these traits fit beautifully into an rp & mechanical point of view for my typical character. Usually a swashubuckly rogue who tends to be smooth talking and find himself in tons of trouble. Thors question is why should I be forced to put the points into those negative traits when All they do is enhance the game play. If i dont take the trait but play my char as a cluts it doesnt influence his charms or looks or that he does everything with style. It simply means that In a fight I'm as likely to look good dropping my sword as i am not, wich is likely to be happening if i'm unlucky. So why spend the 2-3 traits on those negative traits?

Trayer

08-11-2004, 08:31 AM

One thing you mentioned solves the problem Darke.

Thors question is why should I be forced to put the points into those negative traits when All they do is enhance the game play.

Because the player is also forced to put points into positive traits which, by happenstance, enhance gameplay. Thus for the game to be balanced, one should have to pay for any trait that enhances gameplay.

And secondly, those negative traits, when played into your character well help you to identify for other players that: "hey, I am playing, to the hilt, everything on my character sheet." Which at the voting sessions will get you more artha in the long run.

--CMC

eruditus

08-11-2004, 09:21 AM

I think some people have failed to see Thors opinion.

I disagree. I think that most gamers that first get whiff of the traits system see Thor's opinion.

Then there is no reson I cant take, for free with no expectation of gain, Unlucky and clumsy.

If the GM allows? Go for it. But its not part of the rules. The perception of the game (any game) is that you have a certain pool of points (AND Beliefs and Instincts) with which to flesh out your character. It IS working outside the rules (as many do) to do so. Any other traits should generally come out through story and natural character development. Although I see no reason to start the game knowing that "Hey, I think it would be cool if the first few sessions begin to flesh out how I BECAME unlucky, thus soon into the campaign the GM and player play that out and it can be voted on in the next trait vote (or sooner if the need arises). I think that the scope of traits you get is a good way to focus your character (fleshed out with, I say it again, Beliefs and Instincts). I nearly always require some sort of character pitfall so if its not in the other BITs then it should show up in Traits.

Thors question is why should I be forced to put the points into those negative traits when All they do is enhance the game play.

There are lots of things that enhance game play. Positive and negative traits. Sometimes these "negative" traits will even give you a bonus of some sort. You'll find that 1 point Leper trait VERY well spent when the group needs to infiltrate an outcast band of carriers. Maybe the side effect of a Kharmic Sink spell is that it does not effect someone who has the Unlucky trait. Maybe by the character meeting his arch-rival at the complete inopportune time he is the only one not to get caught by the imperial guard and thus must be the one to rescue his companions. I think these are all excellent justifications for having spent that point, just as Affinity, Glib and Lucky have its advantages and disadvantages.

All traits enhance game play, why make some more valuable than others by making them free?

So why spend the 2-3 traits on those negative traits?

Because doing otherwise puts you at an advantage to other players who are following the rules. That's like saying "it enhances the game if I have one more Will beyond my normal starting stat points, why should I pay for it?"

luke

08-11-2004, 10:37 AM

Because doing otherwise puts you at an advantage to other players who are following the rules. That's like saying "it enhances the game if I have one more Will beyond my normal starting stat points, why should I pay for it?"

Wow. That's perhaps the best statement on this issue voiced so far. Go Don.

You know why you have to pay for Unlucky? Because unless you do, you're not Unlucky. You're just rolling dice and roleplaying like everyone else. Sure, you can say your character is Unlucky -- but in game mechanical terms, and in the view of the GM no one has to pay any attention to that.

Why? Because you have IN NO WAY DEMONSTRATED that being Unlucky is AT ALL important to your character concept. If being Unlucky was important to your character concept, you would have spent a trait point or two during character burning and established with your group: THIS IS WHAT MY CHARACTER IS ALL ABOUT.

That's what traits are: the player chooses what is really important to him about his character concept. No one cares about the other stuff.

I see where you are coming from, Dark, but do you see our side of it?

-L

Tom B

08-11-2004, 11:11 AM

I see where you are coming from, Dark, but do you see our side of it?

Absolutely not. (Sorry for butting in.) There are many very good aspects to BW, but some seemed aimed at beginning roleplayers...enough that they bug me somewhat. This is one of those.

I see absolutely no justification for "paying" for negative traits. To me, that's just an aspect of good roleplaying. If they give you a bonus in some way, then they aren't negative. Now...having a mechanic that gives you points whenever these traits actually inconvenience you makes it more borderline...but still in a bad way. (IMO.) People shouldn't need to be rewarded for playing their character as written...that should be the default.

I understand why you're doing it, but it seems entirely aimed at potential munchkin players. I brought the topic up with one of my players...his response was, "Wow. Okay, that's one game I won't be playing." So I now have damage control to do just to get over that initial impression.

I'll just say that ignoring this aspect of the game will probably be our first house rule...along with ignoring leads as long as the player provides sufficient justification for switching backgrounds.

luke

08-11-2004, 11:25 AM

Absolutely not.

Since, Tom, you have offered an absolute on your side, I'll offer one on mine: This rule is absolutely not going to change; it's not up for debate or discussion.

Pete, Don, Thor and I have tried to patiently explain the philosophy behind it to help you all out. We stand over a permanent disagreement. But that's it, discussion's over.

The only other thing I have to offer is:
White Wolf: D10 die pool games; gritty, heroic, get buckets of rewards for taking flaws in your character. A non-munchkin roleplayer's delight.

good luck. It's your game now, enjoy it as you will.
-Luke

Kublai

08-11-2004, 11:26 AM

I see absolutely no justification for "paying" for negative traits. To me, that's just an aspect of good roleplaying. If they give you a bonus in some way, then they aren't negative.

The strong use of positive and negative has influenced your understanding of BW traits. In the Character Burner, Lame is listed right next to Lithe. There is no distinction in the rules between them in the manner you are doing so. Your last sentence above perfectly sums up my argument and gives the best reason why you should pay for them.

"Positive" traits are as much an aspect of good roleplaying as "negative" traits. And so, according to your argument, why would you have to pay for either?

In my opinion, it is the munchkin that will argue for free traits.

eruditus

08-11-2004, 11:48 AM

I see absolutely no justification for "paying" for negative traits.

So everything said before this on the "justification" side of the debate was just useless drivel?

People shouldn't need to be rewarded for playing their characteras written...that should be the default.

Not everyone are performers. Sometimes players need some mechanical motivation to act beyond their own personalities. This put those people on par (mechanically) with those of us who ARE performers. Everyone is on even footing. That's what rules are supposed to do.

"Wow. Okay, that's one game I won't be playing." So I now have damage control to do just to get over that initial impression.

We find that most "munchkins/power gamers" have this reaction.

I'll just say that ignoring this aspect of the game will probably be our first house rule...along with ignoring leads as long as the player provides sufficient justification for switching backgrounds.

That is the essence of the "Don't use the rules" clause in the book. Where things fit one's play style and you don't feel you need the rules then toss them out. I gusee what we're all saying here is "just because you want to get free stuff for your character doesn't mean the rules are any less tight." There is no such thing as the perfect game that pleases everyone (excpet the one I designed in '95... but that's another story entirely :D )

Tom B

08-11-2004, 11:58 AM

We find that most "munchkins/power gamers" have this reaction.

Oo...an insult. You've obviously never sat in on one of our games.

That aside, I apologize for the tone of my previous response. I was somewhat rushed when I wrote it and it came across more harshly than I intended. It's one of the BW rules that pushes my buttons.

Abzu, I was in no way suggesting you should change your rules. You've put together a fine game that manages to take a new look at many RPG tropes and to come up with a new look at them. It's very impressive.

I don't agree with all of it...obviously, since I didn't write it. I wasn't trying to say that your approach was right or wrong in any absolute sense...just that this particular instance goes against my grain.

In responding to the rather strong sense of "obviously this is a good thing" I was getting from several posts, I then hypocritically responded with an even stronger "no it isn't". Sorry.

DarkeTwilight

08-11-2004, 07:22 PM

Abzu and others I do completely see where your coming from. And to an extent I agree. I understand that Negative traits are as much an aspect of play and mechanics as positive. My only problem is it seems to flesh out a character with those traits I do wish to use, both possitive and negative, is nearly impossible with the costs in mind. I tend twords characters in the mid 20's age wise. I'm very flexible in how i tend to select my life paths. Going for things that make me wish to play not things soley for advantage. As such most players will average 5-6 trait points. While yes this is a good number. It does begin to seriously limit when you need to consider negative as well as possitive.

In the end my characters feel incomplete because I eather have all the positive traits I wished and am short a key negative or vice versa. Only solution is taking more life paths thus pushing the age of the character beynd what i desire and taking life paths i dont really want and dont fit into my concept. Wich seems detrimental to the fun behind the character.

Another point I wished to make is we have negative traits we have to buy as well as negative traits due to life paths. Now I will admit such traits i do adore in helping flesh out a character. But it seems rather...hypocritical i suppose. That we would have Traits to give a down side forced by a life path yet also be forced to buy more later on. And while yes some may also be viewed as possitive life path traits most do have a more negative feel to it.

foxandwarlock

08-12-2004, 10:09 AM

In our group, I'm always the guy that makes a character first in order to understand the system. And when I burned my first one for BW, I got to the Traits and discovered just what DarkTwilight did - I didn't have enough Trait points to go around.

But after some discussion with our GM and thinking about it while driving to and from work, I discovered the hidden beauty in that. It really forced me to prioritize what things defined the character. To arrive at a desired result, there are usually multiple approaches to it given the list of Traits in the book. So if I want to be a "charming" character, I can go with Glib, Comely, Charismatic, etc. the list goes on but I can't get them all so I have to start thinking about my character. I have to say so what makes my guy a socialiable guy? Is he a good storyteller (Dramatic) or is he funny (Keen Sense of Humor) or is he just plain old good looking (Comely)? Or likable (Charismatic)?

So yeah, I had to do a little twisting and thinking about it but in the end the limited number of Trait points forced me to boil my character down to his essence before game play ever began. Talk about having a strong feel for my guy when we sat down at the table....I'd already been forced to grapple with it, when choosing my Traits.

Ubby

08-12-2004, 10:20 AM

fox- it gets really interesting when you're burning a 4 LP elf and only get 1 trait point to customize due to all the powerful elven common traits.

Tom B

08-12-2004, 10:28 AM

The only other thing I have to offer is:
White Wolf: D10 die pool games; gritty, heroic, get buckets of rewards for taking flaws in your character. A non-munchkin roleplayer's delight.

Just noticed this...I don't think this is the case in Exalted, the only White Wolf game I'm familiar with. I don't think there are negative traits for which you get points at all.

FWIW, I also dislike the opposite of the BW approach...I also strongly dislike getting points for disads (negative traits). This is what encourages one-legged, blind, paranoid pyromaniacs...wherein the player tries to ignore the negative traits once he has the points.

Truly negative traits, no redeeming features like extra Artha for dealing with them, etc. Should be allowable to anyone who needs them in order to help fully realize their character. Anything that helps a player get a handle on their character and roleplay him more fully should be encouraged and not restricted, IMO.

Raemos

08-12-2004, 11:31 AM

In our group, I'm always the guy that makes a character first in order to understand the system.

Yeah he is. Sometimes I think he makes three or four characters that we never see, perhaps they campaign together. Who knows.

Negative traits are FUN! And all the reason I would need to play one. My compensation for negative traits is the 30 seconds of uncontrollable laughter at the table. My GM is fond of saying he lives for “moments”, those role-playing moments that get retold over and over, long after the session has ended. I look at the type of situations I could get into with the Compulsive Liar trait and would gladly pay double for it. I’d take a ‘negative’ trait twice over before something caned like Brave.

Thanks Luke!

-R

Manicrack

08-14-2004, 12:52 AM

I love the negative trait system in BW.
Because the system forces you(yes, forces) to actually roleplay.

IMO rpg is not about hording good traits, being the best, and making money. It's about having fun while acting out another charackter.
For the exact same reason i like theatre.

Compared to the most common other system: D&D
which is in my opinion a munchkin breeder
BW has many ways of making pklayers to actually roleplay.
negative traits being one.

and hey, if you don't like it, just don't pick any negative traits when you creater a character.

-Crack[/quote]

DarkeTwilight

08-14-2004, 04:13 AM

Some of you seem to miss the point. Its not about disliking negative traits. I for one tend to have hundreds of past characters. And each one was the black sheep of our groups who would screw things up at just the right moment. And normally because of some quirk or trait given my character. My thing is som of those traits only seem to fit from a birth perspective. While granted others are much easier to aquire in play and over time. The question was why should a negative trait cost me some of those precious trait points when the realism is I'll be playing it out anyways. Yet as others siad if you play it out without the trait your likely to simply be ignored.

luke

08-14-2004, 11:43 AM

In Burning Wheel, when burning a character, you decide what is most important to you about the character. You then use trait points to help you describe that.

If it is integral to your concept that your character be missing an eye, you pay the point.

If it is intergral to your concept that your character be handsome, you pay the point.

Trait points force you to decide what is most important about your character.

Character Burning in BW is not a freeform system. You are forced to make choices -- lifepaths, leads, limited skill choice and limited skill selection. You must choose what is most important to you in order to best represent the character. Trait points are part of those tough choices.

If, in play, the gestalt of all of those factors combined with your roleplay creates new facets of the character, those can be voted in as new traits. That's how it's supposed to work.

But what we don't want from starting characters is a Toys R US shopping spree of "and this, and this and this, and this, OH and THIS!" It's part of the system philosophy that you must focus and choose.

Trust me, you can still play your character like a complete asshole without and abiding trait. No one's going to stop you. And I bet you'll be rewarded with the Complete Asshole trait after the adventure is over. I am well aware that traits can't cover all of the myriad aspects of a character's personality. So we start with what is central to the concept in character burning, and then we develop that through play and trait votes.

make your choice,
-Luke

Manicrack

08-14-2004, 12:25 PM

one can still use beliefs and reflexes in order to give a character a few negative parts.

For example the belief:
"Everyone who messes with me deserves to be punished"
can make a whole lot of trouble, and when you play it out, it's a lot of fun.
You know, that royal guard that doesn't want to let you in and isn't very nice while doin so....

You could aslo just start playing a trait you dn't have and hope you get voted for it.

However, i agree with abzu, you have to set your priorities when creating a charackter. That what gives your charackter a personality.

-Crack

elgorade

09-05-2004, 11:09 AM

Trust me, you can still play your character like a complete asshole without and abiding trait. No one's going to stop you. And I bet you'll be rewarded with the Complete Asshole trait after the adventure is over. I am well aware that traits can't cover all of the myriad aspects of a character's personality. So we start with what is central to the concept in character burning, and then we develop that through play and trait votes.

make your choice,
-Luke

It is that part of "negative" traits that I don't get. If you want your character to have a "negative" personality trait, you can simply play the trait and hope to acquire it officially later in the game. So why pay a trait point at creation for "Bully" (I'm not sure if it is a real trait or not) when you can just be a bully? If you do it well, a few sessions in you'll have the trait. If you don't, buying the trait wouldn't have made you play it any better.

The traits that define conditions -- lame, missing an eye, hairy, etc. -- make more sense to me since they aren't personality.

Elgorade

Donny D.

09-05-2004, 02:36 PM

The way I understand it is that the trait points arn't to make your character better or worse. You dont use them to min/max. If you want a really tough character then you can just take more lifepaths and have the uber character you want (with GM approval). Traits tell you and everyone else exactly what your character is like up to the point of play and how the character will probably be like during play. Someone doesnt just wake up one morning and decide to become a Bully. More than likely that person was a bully most of their life. So buy the trait. If, however, you want a character who was always a pretty nice guy in his past, because of current hardships or whatever, become a bully then by all means don't buy the trait, and roleplay him 'becoming' a bully. The opposite is true also. If you want a character who has always been a real 'bully' but see him as 'softening up' during play then buy the trait and roleplay him as a nice guy and you will soon lose the trait. It's not really a 'loss' though because the character is more realistic now. He was always a real bully but now he's maturing and changing. However, if you didnt buy the trait and started playing him as a bully all the NPC's who knew you 'before' play began would be like, "man, what crawled up your butt?" The traits, I think, are to fill out the characters past life and give an indication of how this character will probably get played, etc.

Kaare Berg

09-06-2004, 10:32 AM

wasn't going to do this

wasn't going to do this,

but what the hell.

I promised.

I have always said that rules are for people who can't make decisions (and recently has been expanded to "and players that do not trust their GMS.")

The great charm of the BW char gen sytem is that it makes you think about your character before you create him. Having to pay for all traits, be they negative or positive, makes you think what is really important for your character. And if it is important that your character has Thunderous Snore, then hell pay the one point. Otherwise your PC may snore, but not to that extent that it lets you grab story time by doing so.

And here is the caveat. A trait lets you grab the spotlight. It in't meant as a freebie or a bonus in battle (as the WW traits often are).

It is one thing that makes your character stand out. It is the Gift, letting you use magic, it is Light Sleeper letting you wake at the slightest sound (and force you to sleep well away from that dwarf) and it is Halitosis messing up your love life (but working wonders on your interrigation).

It is something that lets you grab the spot light and turn a mundane scene into something magical. And you can get Artha for playing them at difficult oppertunities; Like having to whisper in the Kings ear only to have the nancy pass out and you labelled an assassin.

So wanting payback for picking a negative trait is asking for something that is already implicated in the rules. You just need to trust your GM to provide it.

And no I am not passing judgement, or making assumptions about those that disagree. I'm just piping in my two c and my take on the discussion.

Kublai

09-07-2004, 10:26 AM

It is that part of "negative" traits that I don't get. If you want your character to have a "negative" personality trait, you can simply play the trait and hope to acquire it officially later in the game. So why pay a trait point at creation for "Bully" (I'm not sure if it is a real trait or not) when you can just be a bully? If you do it well, a few sessions in you'll have the trait. If you don't, buying the trait wouldn't have made you play it any better.

There is an simple, mechanical answer to this question. The sooner you have a trait listed on your character sheet, the sooner you can begin earning Artha for playing that trait. If you have the Bully trait from the get-go, you can earn Artha straight away for playing out that trait. If you don't have it but begin playing the Bully from minute one, you will earn the trait eventually, but you won't be earning Artha for your efforts.

Wuxing

09-07-2004, 11:48 AM

There is an simple, mechanical answer to this question. The sooner you have a trait listed on your character sheet, the sooner you can begin earning Artha for playing that trait.

Because this needed to be repeated in bold. Artha is what eventually makes you heroic. In my opinion it's one, if not possibly the, most important part of the system. You want these artha earning "machines" on your sheet ASAP.

elgorade

09-09-2004, 07:21 AM

Donny D.

09-09-2004, 10:15 AM

In Burning Wheel, when burning a character, you decide what is most important to you about the character. You then use trait points to help you describe that.
If it is integral to your concept that your character be missing an eye, you pay the point.
If it is intergral to your concept that your character be handsome, you pay the point.
Trait points force you to decide what is most important about your character.
Character Burning in BW is not a freeform system. You are forced to make choices -- lifepaths, leads, limited skill choice and limited skill selection. You must choose what is most important to you in order to best represent the character. Trait points are part of those tough choices.

According to this, negative traits should NOT be taken as an Artha generating machine. They are used to describe the character you envision. I think artha should be gained by playing to your character's beliefs, not traits. In gaining artha for traits, why should your character get as much artha (become more heroic) when he is lame as he would if he where Charismatic or bold? Shouldn't a character that is Bold get more artha than one that is cowardly? And if you are wanting to play a cowardly character then it stands to reason you are not wanting to play a great, heroic character.

But I do understand what you guys are saying, If you envision your character as a bully then you want to pay the points for it NOW and start earning artha rather than just trying to gain that trait 'in game'. But if you envision your character according to how much Artha he can produce you will naturally make a character with those traits that are best at getting artha (and the negative ones seem to be easiest to play).

luke

09-09-2004, 10:26 AM

why should your character get as much artha (become more heroic) when he is lame as he would if he where Charismatic or bold?

He doesn't. Both characters earn the same artha, but under different conditions.

Shouldn't a character that is Bold get more artha than one that is cowardly?

Why is one trait more reward-worthy than another? Playing a cowardly character is just as hard as playing a bold character.

Players earn artha for their characters by embodying their traits or using their traits to make life difficult for the character (ie, make the story interesting).

And because I think I need to say this again: THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE TRAITS

To wit: Our hero has the Bold trait. His side is faced with a battle of overwhelming odds, one they surely cannot win. His Bold nature demands that he undertake a (suicidal) raid into the heart of the enemy. The character is heroically killed, the enemy forces invade and conquer.

Our other hero has the cowardly trait. Faced with a battle of overwhelming odds, his mind screams "Flee!". He does so, survives the encounter and lives on to discover there are more ways to defeat your enemies than just in open battle.

So which is the negative trait?

There are only traits,
-L

Donny D.

09-09-2004, 10:37 AM

OK, I'm starting to see the light...

You buy traits in order to gain artha. Period. It's just a matter of picking HOW you want to gain that artha. You are going to gain artha no matter what you pick. So if you buy Charismatic and Bold you are going to have a charismatic and bold artha gainer. If you want to buy Lame and Cowardly then that is just the way you want to play this character and you will still gain the artha. Ok that makes sense. Actually pretty cool. Now you don't have to avoid the 'negative' traits because you dont want to handicap your character. Any traits you buy are going to 'help' your character, just in different ways.
Your explaination is something that should DEFINATELY be highlighted and underlined and circled in the reprint. :)

Kublai

09-09-2004, 11:16 AM

A fine summary, Donny D.!

Lebo77

11-26-2004, 01:02 AM

So I can't buy that there are no negative traits.

You could definitely make a character who is almost unplayable. Blind and Deaf costs only 2 points, and missing limbs go for 1 each. By the logic above, this guy would be an artha MACHINE! Of course a blind, deaf adventurer missing a limb or two would be of limited usefulness in most situations. I guess You could make him/her some kind of artisan and take their artisan skills to grey right quick, but I know in the group I play with such a character would find themselves left behind or used as a human sacrifice the first time it was needed.

These traits are defiantly "negative" in my view as they make you a lot less likely to be able to participate in the story. Hellen Keller makes a difficult focus of the story.