Players want their characters to be fun, which means they
should serve as capable tools for interacting with the world and resolving
challenges presented in the story. They
should also be connected to the story through hooks to give them context and
motivation. These two layers actually oppose one another.
As a GM, this mechanic is awesome. It gives players a chance to make a bad
decision intentionally, and justify it to the other players. As discussed elsewhere, flaws make great
hooks, but they also make great spotlight opportunities for players.
Most importantly, the Flaws systems in both Old and especially New World of Darkness games (and in many other games and even house rules systems for games without Flaws) do something unique: They bridge the gap from hooks to capabilities. They make your character stronger (with points) while giving you some pretty gritty story hooks. The forces of capability and motivation are still opposed, but they're also united. A good player or even a half-decent one can use a Flaw to justify taking an action that is not expedient or even competent.
Most importantly, the Flaws systems in both Old and especially New World of Darkness games (and in many other games and even house rules systems for games without Flaws) do something unique: They bridge the gap from hooks to capabilities. They make your character stronger (with points) while giving you some pretty gritty story hooks. The forces of capability and motivation are still opposed, but they're also united. A good player or even a half-decent one can use a Flaw to justify taking an action that is not expedient or even competent.
Designing scenes to provide a real challenge in World of
Darkness games is laughably difficult.
It’s hardly worth even trying – You have to consider the die pools of
each character, but also all of their supernatural powers, potential ways of
getting die pool modifiers, and their ability to expend resources to raise
their die pools. Combat challenges are
even less predictable. But then, this
ain’t D&D. In D&D, everyone can
be 90% dead and the battle would be considered a success. A single character getting wounded is
supposed to be a big deal.
Instead of that sort of challenge, a World of Darkness GM should
design his scenes to challenge the players’ flaws. Their flaws include the Flaws they got points
for, their Nature and Demeanor or Virtue and Vice (which, unlike alignment,
specifically reward irrational behavior), and their particular politics
(supposing you’re running a game with political intrigue in it, as intended). Also, if you’re playing a game like Werewolf
or Vampire, list their “don’t freak out and do evil stuff” stat (e.g.
Courage/Self Control in Vampire: the Masquerade) and their Humanity, or equivalent
stat if it’s especially low.
Make a grid, like this:
Character
Name
|
Major
Flaws
|
Minor
Flaws
|
Under Major Flaws, list anything where the character would
be compelled or at least strongly motivated to act irrationally. Under Minor Flaws, list anything where the
character would be motivated to act
irrationally, or at least tempted. Here’s an example using the Vampire: the
Requiem system.
Character
Name
|
Major
Flaws
|
Minor
Flaws
|
Annabelle
|
Flaw: Addiction to Cocaine
Humanity 5
|
Vice: Pride
Mekhet sire went missing last year; will seek clues
to his disappearance
|
Balthazar
|
Derangement: Suspicion
|
Vice: Sloth
Secretly Ordo Dracul pretending to be Carthian, will act to keep this
secret
|
Christian
|
None
|
Vice: Wrath
Ardent Lancea Sanctum; intolerant of the Circle of
the Crone
|
Darius
|
Flaw: Mortal parents are still alive; would do anything to keep them
from being killed/embraced/caught up in kindred politics
|
Vice: Pride
Carthian, somewhat hostile to antiquated, authoritarian structures; “problem
with authority”
|
Now, when you plan your scenes, you can try to throw in one
or two of the elements from your table. You
could have a situation where the coterie would benefit by having a member of
the Ordo Dracul with them, tempting Balthazar to reveal his secret and risk his
cover being blown. Or you could have a mysterious
Mekhet appear at an Elysium and vanish, leading Annabelle to wander off looking
for him. Or you could have a problem
come up with the mortal world that Darius’ parents happen to be the perfect
people to help out with it…
Try to work these things into each and every scene that you
plan, if you can. In World of Darkness
games, often you have to ad lib scenes, but you can plan a few scenes per
night, and that means you can touch on a few flaws per night. With the new World of Darkness system, the reward for
getting caught up in your flaws is an experience point, in addition to the
spotlight time. That’s even better!
The downside of granting additional build points for flaws is that it exacerbates the already widely variable results of point-buy character creation. Like you, I'm glad that the later ST systems removed the front-loaded benefit to flaws. Now there is a smaller issue that since many of the flaws don't have the mechanical nature of their penalties well outlined, some players now shy away from flaws. Perhaps that is why I'm very much in favor of the idea of flaws as a mandatory component for dramatic roleplaying games.
ReplyDeleteI redesigned them for my Changeling game. I made them simpler: Anything can be listed as a Flaw. It only grants an XP in a session if it significantly impairs you during a session. You can put "mildly allergic to pop tarts" or "blind" on there, and that's fine but one of those is going to be an XP / spotlight time factory and the other is going to sit there unused. I also said you can earn 1 xp per flaw up to 3 per session (so 3 flaws became almost mandatory).
DeleteI'd be concerned that your bonus XP for flaws might create some significant difference in character advancement. (I know, in a White Wolf game that's probably alarmist, but I prefer my players have the opportunity to afford some of the more interesting powers eventually.) To prevent this from happening I would probably inflate my session XP rewards and maybe cap flaw XP to once per session for any flaw. Then the benefit to having multiple flaws is that you have different means in which you can seek that flaw XP each session.
DeleteWell I don't give ANY other kind of XP, but I gave them 100 starting XP. They didn't have to spend it all.
DeleteAt this risk of "um actually" I'd like to not that the Old Flaw/Merit system isn't much different from what existed in GURPs, Champions, and a lot of other games that predated the WoD. Similarly, lots of indie games and some very non-indie ones (like Deadlands) used something like the New WoD Flaw system.
DeleteThat said, I agree that flaws, particularly in systems similar to the New WoD, are very useful for the GM. The biggest problem I've had with them, as a GM, is when they don't move me in any way (oh, right, rats hate Bob) or when they don't move the player (either the player took it because (s)he wanted an advantage and/or got tired of it, so they have no passion for the sort of "trouble" that the flaw generates).
Reinhart, certain types of players benefit from NOT taking flaws. If you're not enthusiastic about the sort of trouble a flaw engenders, you're better off not taking it. Being less mechanic-strict actually makes this *clearer*... I'm running a Reign game right now and all the players only took flaws they *love* having, or didn't take any at all.