> I'm against that. Abilities should be advantages. If the player
> wants something to be used against them, they should declare it as
> a flaw. 'Hate Lunars' could be taken as an ability OR a flaw. The
> alternatives should have different results. Using abilities against
> players undermines the choice the player has made, by diminishing
> the distinction.
Well, I see abilities more as "properties" of the character than specifically good stuff and bad stuff. I'm inclined to see flaws as what the character THINKS is a flaw; I think its both plausible and realistic for "flaws" to be used positively by cunning players, or for enemies to set up an opponjent in such a way as to turn their strength into a weakness. If you push a mastadon off a cliff, its Big should not give it a bonus against the damage, it should be assessed as a "flaw" under those circumstances.
Using an enemies strength against them is a strategy I'm prone to myself, so I tend to think in terms of how to turn and asset into a liability and vice versa. Risky, but getting an opponent to commit to a fight in which their strengths are used against them is arguably the optimum possible strategy. I see no reason the the Little Smiling Oriental Guy could use the Big Lumbering Oxe's "Big" attribute as an augment to their "Throw Opponent Over Shoulder" feat or whatever; judo is quite literally based on this principle.
Powered by hypermail