> Roderick:
> >Because flaws cost no resources (HP) to increase. "Okay, I put another
point
> >into 'Hunted by Lunars', it's now 10w2. Watch out ladies, Joe Lunarbane
is
> >in town".
>
> Good point. Of course the player so evidently abusing the "flaw" should be
> made to pay HP to increase it. I would prefer to give such things out as
> assigned HPs (or assigned non-HPs, in the case of flaws), or at least
> require a good motivation from the player ("what do you mean Deaf 10W2?").
> What I am saying is that dividing abilities into flaws and not-flaws seems
> artificial and not conducive to the MGF. So what if a player finds good
use
> of a flaw, I do not have to punish him directly (after all, I am the one
> who allows the flaw to be used that way, or not).
> Should the G...Narrator likewise not be allowed to occasionally use a
> hero's abilities against her?
This is me writing as a player, not as the Rules Guy. As such, it is *my opinion*, which may color my rules-writing, but should not be taken as indicative of any official stance.
The real difference between "Flaw" abilities and "Not-Flaw" is "do I have to spend HP in *increase* it, or *decrease* it?" The occasional use of a flaw as a "positive" ability is okay, but I, as a player/narrator (rather than rules guy), get really cranky at people who try to push the maximum gain out of what is, at base, supposed to be a *bad* thing for their character. In my mind, people should be trying to overcome flaws (by clever use of *other* abilities, or HP to "train" it down, or whatever), not reveling in them. IMO, a gain in a flaw should not be greeted with joy on the part of the player!
RR
Powered by hypermail