Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wait, so you don't get any points for flaws?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
    So, Cifer, you're saying the clunkiness of the software is the forum's 2pts of flaw? It's annoying, but it makes something that's otherwise great more interesting to deal with?
    Nah, that one's just plain annoying, like one of those flaws that suddenly everyone else in the group has to play around though they didn't get any points for it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cifer View Post
      Oh, come on. Two points of flaws can mean "You're illiterate." (...)
      I always liked this Flaw, cause it is representative of persons who - despite there being many of them, and illiteracy being very problematic - are not at all discussed in the media and public discourses ( at least, I have not encountered it at all ) . In fact, illiteracy being available as a Flaw in WoD is what made me aware of the fact that there are many persons who are illiterate in the current times ; that it happens relatively often.

      Comment


      • #18
        I admit I was disappointed with the required 2pts of flaws in V5. It's part, I suppose, of the new darker, grittier, angstier, world of V5. A basic premise of which seems to be "if your character is too awesome, you're having fun wrong. Stupid Vampions!"

        It's true that in V20&pre you could take up to 7pts of flaws, but it was voluntary and you got stuff in exchange for that. If you took seven points in flaws you could buy True Faith, an additional dot in a discipline, or Nine Lives with change to spare. It wasn't just a thin layer of suck wiped onto every pc at chagen, with nothing to show for it.

        This isn't the only place where V5 decided that awesome was bad, and tragically flawed was the only right way to play.

        You are required to have one Attribute at below average. This raises the awkward question of why sires keep choosing fledglings with low Attributes. If you're, say, a Ventrue prince and you want to embrace a cop with military experience there are probably dozens of these in any major metro area. Why pick the one who happens to be lazy (Resolve 1), stupid (Intelligence 1), or creepy (Charisma 1)? I get there is the occasional drive-by embrace, and sometimes personal feelings come into it, like embracing your mortal grandson even if he is mediocre. All things being equal, though, why embrace someone with a glaring flaw, like an Attribute of 1?

        It doesn't make sense from a story viewpoint to require an Attribute of 1, considering most fledglings are hand-picked. There also isn't a power balance reason. It is absolutely possible to have a pc without a low Attribute built on the same number of xp.

        This isn't about power-gaming or building a MarySue. It's about not wanting to have the concept of an obviously flawed character being baked into the cake from the start.

        Then there are clan compulsions. These are, in effect, additional clan flaws on top of the main one listed in the clan templates. Given the "throw a copy of all the sections up in the air and print them in the order in which they land" organization of the book, this is not made obvious to new players when browsing the templates, of course. It only becomes obvious when you are hit with a Compulsion in play.

        While most clan compulsions are fairly mild, some get the shaft. Take the Toreador. Imagine you are a player with a beloved Toreador pc in a V20 chronicle, and the ST chooses to convert to V5. In V20, you were in awe of beauty. In V5, you are in awe of beauty... and lose dice on discipline pools in "less than beautiful surroundings". (ie whenever the ST feels like it.)

        It's like that for most of the clans. They had one clan flaw, now they have two. The Nosferatu... as I suppose is to be expected... get it the worst. They have a compulsion to seek knowledge. They also are clearly inhuman, with a penalty to hide their vampire-ness equal to their blood potency. They also have the Repulsive flaw, which for non-Nosferatu is a two point flaw. Then they still need to take the two additional dots in flaws. How long of a laundry list of flaws do players need to feel dramatic?

        Speaking of Blood Potency, the stronger you get, the weaker you get, because... ummm... I'm not sure of the reasoning. Taken to its logical conclusion, this should make the Antedeluvians, who were the main thing differentiating VtM's metaplot from VtR's metaplot, into basketcases so burdened with disabilities they could barely function. This is in a brave new world in which elders don't have high level disciplines or attributes a 6+. How are they going to destroy the world, exactly?

        Even if a player wants to voluntarily accept the downsides of stronger blood (say, to build a fledgling who was embraced with strong blood so the troupe can examine themes of entitlement and inequality) they don't have that option. V5 omitted a mechanic for building stronger blooded fledglings. Under the new canon rules, it literally isn't possible to build a strong-blooded vampire. That only happens at ST fiat. Oh, they expanded the options for building thinbloods. Indeed, they encourage it with snazzy new alchemy and daywalking and so forth. But, not thick blooded pcs. No, that would be too much like awesome... and awesome is bad.

        Then there are Touchstones. There used to be a flaw called "Ward", which meant you had a human you cared about and protected. Think Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen in the early Superman comics. It was worth 3 pts. Now, Touchstones sort of require you to have 3 of these wards who, if they are killed, reduce your ability to resist the Beast. In V20, this would have been 9pts in flaws. In V5, it's just what a book standard character expects.

        ...

        Sorry to rant. I've been holding that one in for a few months.

        ...

        I'm going to go do some yoga now.

        Comment

        Working...
        X