Amen brother!
Look, I mysef have been the target of DW's harsh rhetoric and snide comments. But I can take it. Hell, dish it out 'cause I love it!
And Fixer is a man, not a little school girl. I am sure he can take it as well. DW called his point Irrelevant. If this is untrue, I am certain Fixer can easilly demonstrate why it is indeed relevant.
What growth can there be if there is only polite discussion between people who agree with each other? Only through Conflict is there Growth.
I think you are misinterpreting (which, of course, you are free to do so if you like, for your own saga).
However, the core RAW is quite clear that Flaws are of two types. General Flaws (stuff like, Lame, No Hands) and some Hermetic/Supernatural Flaws (Difficult Spontaneous magic) are things that hinder or handicap the character.
The other type of Flaws, mostly the Story and Personality Flaws, generate stories. They are not so much statements about how the character Must Be Played. They are statements/cues about the kinds of stories that are going to be told about the character in the saga.
Take, Hatred, for example, it doesn't mean that your character (necessarily) Hates Faeries (or whatever) more than anybody else. It means that the troupe is going to try to use your character's Hatred for Faeries (or whatever) to drive a story. Say, some situation is going to arise that can be easily solved by co-operating with faeries, however your character's Hatred means that either co-operation is impossible, or he acts to undermine the faeries, and thus a story is created.
Which incidentally is why there are limits (in RAW), to things like the number of Personality Flaws. It is meant to be a balancing point, so that a single character does not dominate your whole saga. If a single character is three different kinds of madman, then the saga very easily becomes just what that character does, rather than about what all the characters do. These are the important points around which we try to balance character in ArM. Characters are not balanced in terms of what they can do in the game-world. Characters are balanced around how important they are to the saga story.
I fully agree with that. Individual characters are irrelevant for me, even my own. The important thing is the story we tell together. Hell, in most adventures we even KNOW what is going to happen because we discuss it before the session (in broad terms), it is the path we walk towards that final scene that matters.
Cheers,
Xavi
Me too. A good point.
I do think the limits on Personality/Story flaws can be too harsh. You may want stuff that only several Flaws can give you, and I think a good SG would allow you to take them as "extra" flaws or arrange some other deal, if that's the character you want. But for the most part, the limits are indeed needed for a more balanced role of characters in stories.
Yeah, I agree, that sometimes it is a good idea to relax these limits. It's a case-by-case decision, and I think that the troupe should be careful and aware that they do not end up creating a story-hogging character, which is what the rules are set up to avoid. Unless the troupe wants to create a saga centred about a single character, of course.
That is a fair PoV. I would counter that with suggesting you are not quite understanding me (which is my fault for not being more clear)
Fair enough. I would put forth the suggestion that, those that were Flaws in previous editions are indeed handicaps. My PoV stems from those Flaws which were Virtues in previous editions, yet are now called Flaws even though they have the exact same wording. These are the Flaws that are not truly detriments, or if they are they also carry some sort of bonus or advantage (a Mentor is a useful potential ally, Reckless means you ain't no wuss-bag).
As for "Generating Stories", I admit that this annoys me. I design a campaign with hooks and plots, and some guy comes along and hijacks my plot with story flaws. In fact, there are many ways you can employ story flaws as having an effect upon the character & story without having to base a whole adventure around it. Basically, I prefer some flexability. They can be used to generate stories, to motivate participation in other stories, or as a part of the characters background that has a constant effect (eg. you can play Close Family Ties as having your brother constantly tag along with you, not requiring a seperate story but rather requiring you to make constant provisions for his safety.
As for Personality Flaws, I don't like generating any stories off of these. Not at all. They should instead be indicators of how your character must behave.
Actually, there isn't. It says "Should Not", rather than "May Not" or "Cannot". It is a suggestion, not a limit or a hard-fast rule. You can spend all of yoyr Flaw points on multiple Story and Personality Flaws and still be legit within RAW.
Really. Look it up. We are not talking about an absolute rule here, just a reccomendation.
That's just a matter of how plot-based or how character-based a story is.
Either is fine, but where you get trouble is when some players think the story is very plot-based and others think the story is very character-based, which seems to be what you are describing. That's just a matter of being clear within your troupe about what sort of game you are playing. ArM supports either.
I think that we are running into idiomatic differences between English speakers from different cultures.
RFC 2119
MUST = absolute requirement
SHOULD = need valid reason to go against
MAY = optional
Yes, exactly, and the reason that standards groups need these precise extra-dictionary definitions, is largely due to different cultural uses of these words, in normal text. Somehow, I don't think that ArM writers refer to these technical standards when they are writing.
I read a really good article by Rick Priestly (I think; I can't find the article anymore) ages ago, which was about the difficulties he had encountered writing wargames rules for US audiences who read words like these differently to what he as a British English speaker expected.
I find it is boring to know beforehand where the story is going, both as a player and as a SG. I find it is much more fun to create a few key characters (20-30 works for me) with their level of power and motivation, some covenants and other interesting locals, and then let the players run free and pursue whatever goal their characters might have.
I believe most players enjoy the ability to affect and change the game world according to their own desires.
To say that individual characters don't matter ignores the type of saga that the players may actually want, and it reduces their role in the game. Instead of being more active contributors for the saga, they become actors reading from a script.
it is the duty of the SG to create interesting plots for the characters the players actually want to play.
There are different levels of "knowing where the story is going". Knowing that the story is, say, about "discovering a secret cabal of infernalists" is different to "knowing precisely which NPC characters are secret infernalists".
I strongly feel that the story should be about the characters, it would be a totally different story if there were totally different player characters. For me, the characters are the important thing, but the most important thing about the characters is their role in the story (say, rather than their individual survival). Where you have problems is when the story ignores the characters, or when the players lose sight of the fact that their characters have a story role.
Well, it works for me and my players. We decide to create a covenant in Mann and see if we can suceed to survive 2 grand tribunals (38 years, all in all). The fact that we know that we are going to see the king of Mann to negotiate about our right of rulership over the Calf of Mann and the fact that we succeed are 2 different things. We might even know who will be the ones opposing our move. If we succeed or not depends on our actions.
Our story is about the covenant. We are sure that some of our beloved characters will die in the way to get the final objective. And that does not matter. If my archmagus dies, so what? Was it a cool death? So be it then. We all know the major events that will happen in the Brit isles and the hermetic landscape (more fuzzy in this later area) during this time, and can plan stories accordingly.
If that does not work for you, no problem. Different sagas, different people. Different approaches to the game.
Cheers,
Xavi
I think story flaws and covenant hooks are a great way for the players to describe what they want and expect from the saga. My character has Visions, for example; that means I do expect that he'll occasionally get visions to drive him off to adventure or push him in this direction or that. The flexibility is there - the visions don't have to drive the story, they just have to be a part of it. But the existence of the flaw is a great way to signal what I want and expect to the SG.
I do think the hooks are a bit lacking, however, in that they don't include saga-themes. Covenants makes the important recommendation to set the number of hooks to the amount you will play in six months, based on the amount of stories you want to play "in the covenant" (and the frequency of play). But a lot of hooks can create stories well outside the covenant - the Castle hook, for example, might very well lead to negotiations in the king's palace. Seen in a broader light, hooks are just story flaws affecting the covenant as a whole. I therefore think a Saga Theme hook is missing. Those campaign hooks you're talking about are really covenant hooks, that are unspecified - and cannot be specified, as they'd idiosyncratic for each saga. They are generic covenant hooks.
Well, the idea is that personality flaws should sometimes complicate the story, at least, if not cause it. If they don't, they aren't really serving their role as personality flaws. Again I don't think this needs to be adhered to too strictly - it's fine if they just color the character for the most part IMO. But there is certainly nothing wrong about generating stories off personality flaws, and indeed I'd think that over a long saga I'd expect players to proactively do so. What's the point of taking Lustful if you ain't trying to seduce the princess?
I interpret that phrasing to be a rule, not a recommendation.
I note the core book does recommend limiting the number of Story and Personality flaws based on how often they'll come up in play. So this is definitely not a hard and fast rule - the point is to set the number of story and personality flaws, and covenant hooks, to fit the frequency and style of play of your saga, so that they'll come to bear.
rereading my previous 2 posts, maybe I did not put that clearly enough. Next try 
we all know the saga arc: build a covenant in Mann and have it survive for 2 grand tribuinals (38 years in all) so that the Isle of Mann becomes part of the Hibernian tribunal
We all know the major events for the previous 50 years of the saga AND for the years that the saga will develop. Wars, invasions, major conflicts between nobles, major changes in rulership...
We all have read the Isle of Mann supplement in Hermes Portal 14 and 15.
That is our background. We have also agreed on the basics of the story arc:
a) there will be a rival covenant sponsored by Loch Leglean magi.
b) our covenant will be well grounded in mundane politics, but weak in supernatural contacts. The rival covenant will be well grounded in supernatural contacts but have a bad relation with the local mundane powers.
c) The leading character behind the creation of the covenant will be Severtin Ex Tytalus, from TOME. We will play that adventure as the introduction to the saga.
d) the main sponsor for the covenant will be a covenant in Hibernia to be defined in the first story. (That ended up changing from the first covenant we defined - Lux Septentrionalis - to a covenant that was originally a secondary force used for hermetic correspondence - Temporis - )
And so we started the saga. We had all read the Severin story and played through it rather fast. It was for character development more than about having a real challenge here. Much easier. In fact the whole saga is grounded in that story and Peripetheia's role as a supernatural sponsor.
There are 2 kinds of story:
Stories were we develop an important feature. Like a story to develop a good income resource. We discuss what it should be and design a story about how to get it. Or a story about our first encounter with the Loch Leglean magi: we KNOW that the encounter will not end up in friendly terms. it is up to the current SG to design it, and up to us to see how we react to them. We (as players) know that they are our nemesis, though. Our characters do not know that yet.
We have A LOT of stories where we know the basic premise, but how we solve the problem will mark how the environment reacts to us in the future. It is not about what, but about how. Knowing the murderer is easy with hermetic magic (in fact, so easy that we tend to avoid mystery stories since 3rd edition. Not our kind of game). Solving the case satisfactorily for everybody is what is a story for us.
Cheers,
Xavi
When did I wrote such a thing?
What I wrote was why, as far as I understand it, you're only allowed a limited number of these. This don't stop you from combining them or from having, say, your personnal nemesis work hand-in-hand with some of the main story villains.
What I'm saying is that if a flaw is never or seldom used, you shouldn't get points for it.
Surely, you can get the difference?
And thank you for your ridiculous paranoia.
For your information: I chose these flaws mostly at random, only eliminating one instance of too-conflicting ones (although I did miss continent + wrathful, which is slightly at odds) and, natural tendancy following, writing something at least barely believable.
Where did I, or the RAW, say otherwise? That's why your personnality traits and backstory are here for.
Here? We're talking about the limit on flaws.
You'll also note that complex doesn't nescessarily means flawed. Surely, you know, for exemple, people who are religious or atheists (personnality trait). How many of them are vocal enough about it that it regularly puts them into trouble/stories (flaw)?
Oh, I don't know... Maybe because you want to roleplay such a character?
I've got a friend that, whatever the game, creates flawed characters because he finds them more interesting. Are you telling me that, because he also does this when he can gain nothing from it (such as in a game without v/f) , he is stupid?
Are you telling me that, before the introduction or personnality and story flaws in games, you never had characters that were in love, had ennemies, a family, or a deep fear or spider?
Or are you telling me you're only taking flaws when there's an advantage in doing so? Because that sure looks like it. Otherwise, "there's zero reason for doing so", so that's "utterly stupid".
Well, some people think otherwise, understand that these limits are limits on flaws, not on character, and thus are not bothered by them . If you play differently, fine, but that fact doesn't make these stupid, just unsuited to your tastes.
You don't want traits, just flaws?
So, tell me, what are traits good for? In fact, why are there traits at all?
What's the difference between a trait "wrathful + 1" and the Wrathful flaw? Why is there a wratful trait at all?
And, following your reasonning, shouldn't positive and useful traits such as "Brave +2" be traded for a virtue? How to be Bold without a minor virtue? After all, if you MUST have the Pagan flaw to be a pagan magus, why would you get to be brave and stand up to monsters for free?
Only if you insist that you can't have, say, a Pagan character without the Pagan Major Flaw, or hate faeries without the Hatred flaw.
Exactly. And thanks
DW, I keep trying to be fair with you, but, more and more, I have the tendency to skip your posts. Because, while you may have interesting things to say, and have a very impressive medieval culture, when we talk about the differences between your saga and the RAW, you often act as though people are dumb not to recognize how awesome your HR are, and how the parts that you've changed were daft to begin with.
I can perfectly understand that some or all aspects of the RAW don't please you and that, in your game, you may wish to change them so that these work better for you. But better for you doesn't mean better for everyone, nor does it make these rules nescessarily stupid.
Oh? And was your little rant about flaw limits relevant at all in a discussion about arts scores? Yet people read you, and considered what you said. That's how human conversation works: It derails and keeps on .
But, well, explain me. You write something about how v/f limits are foolish. I answer by trying to explain why, as far as I understand, these exist.
How is that irrelevant to your post? Enlighten me, what should I have said instead ?
You may not have noticed it, but I was doing a general post, explaining, as far as I understand, the limits (advised or not) on v/f choices in the game line. I doubt david chart bothers about you and your game. I wouldn't.
If you feel personnaly targeted by that part, what can I say? 
As far as I understand, here's the difference between traits and personnality flaws:
Flaws indicate the kind of stories you want to tell about your character, and the tools you're handing out your SG for that. So, if I want my character to be hated and shunned by his family, thus explaining his outlook on these, but am not interested in that kind of stories, I shouldn't take a flaw. Same thing goes for pagan and the problem it may bring. Idem if my character wants to surpass bonisagus.
I agree with you that traits should generally be stronger than flaws. But not always.
But if a hatred for faeries is so central to a character concept that the player wants it to rule is life and drag him into stories, he should take it as a flaw. If not, a trait is fine.
A character can hate faeries with all his soul, more than any other character in the game world, if the player, for whatever reason, don't want to take stories about that hate and its consequences, he shouldn't take the flaw.
I know a awful sad lot of people who are more or less racists, at least in speech (trait). They won't attack arabs or help skinheads escape the police, though, which generate "stories". That's the difference between trait and flaw.
Maybe the second player should have "dislike faeries" instead? Would you feel better that way?
you'll never change
What if I was a girl? What if I was depressive?
Sniding people instead of answering just reminds me of schoolyard bullies, that's all. It does not, in any way, give me the desire to exchange with DW. It doesn't further comprehension and knowledge.
DW says he uses real-world physics in his game. What if people, instead of asking him how he resolves things or pointing out what they may perceive as flaws if/when they see them, instead said "Using real physics in a medieval game about magic is daft"? Yeah, real progress there.
What I'd have liked as an answer? Something like this (OK, this is too much and unrealistic, but please bear with me) :
"I do realize this, and shouldn't have said these limits are foolish.
But these are not appropriate for our play style: my fellow players and I are experienced gamers, able to handle multiple story/personnality flaws at once and easily spin them into an epic story without any character stealing screen time. So we've lifted the limit , and everyone is happy with it ."
I wasn't bothered with him lifting the limits for whatever reasons. He's perfectly entitled to like/dislike some aspects of the game (such as wards and penetration). I was bothered about him calling them foolish without any explanation, which, besides impliying he may not understand why these may exist (which was the purpose of my post), implies that both the line editor and people playing more-or-less by the RAW are stupid.
"should not" means its a recommendation, a strong recommendation but not a demand. "should not" does NOT equal "can not" or "must not".
Yeah, they are definitions of the character, they are "stories to be" only if both player and SG thinks its a good idea.
That reasoning makes a whole bunch of assumptions that are simply not generally applicable nor true.
Having 5 times as many flaws =/= coming into play 5 times less often. Flaws can be part of the main storyline, or the 2ndary OR they can generate something of their own. Any storyline can be based of off a single Storyflaw, or it can be based on ALL the storyflaws of ALL characters at the same time. Thats just a matter of how the SG and or players wants to run it.
OR, storyflaws can be used as defining character actions rather than causing stories, clearly affecting the character but without adding stories. An enemy might bother a character once ever, or might be around all the time, but the flaw still affects the character even if it NEVER happens, perhaps taking precautions against the enemy or hiring someone to keep an eye on them...
ETC ETC ETC... All those assumptions that you added makes the reasoning completely irrelevant as a REPLY to ME, and since you started off by quoting ME, and then seems directed at ME, than why ever should i make the assumption that you suddenly isnt replying to ME.
Which is wrong. As demonstrated by posts in between about the linguistics.
Actually no. In that case, why dont we simply state that all characters gets all virtues as long as they dont use them too often? Thats the same argument the other way around and it gets very silly very quickly.
As i´ve said before, i´ve played characters with 30+ Flaws and less than 10 Virtue points because i had character concepts that needed such an extreme setup, and those kind of characters was fun, without being a parody, without hogging the attention... I´ve also played and seen characters with almost the reverse, and as long as you dont intentionally try to min-max and go totally munchkin, those characters are no less suitable for playing than some more common ones.
As long as Flaws are PART of the character, and affects the character in SOME way, then its clearly THERE and should just as clearly be worth its points. But that doesnt mean you must adhere to those exact points.
If a character blatantly ignores a Flaw and the SG lets him get away with it, just drop it from the character, or replace it with one that is coherent with how the player plays the character.
Not paranoia. Just that writing it so short made it look silly. Im sure i (or you) could come up with an "explanation" or character writeup for that combination eventually, but just writing it up like that, as i said, it looks a bit silly. It always does to some degree if you write it up that short, but yours just went a bit extra far.
You look at Story Flaws as something that MUST generate stories. I consider them something that further defines the character and MAY cause stories but doesnt have to.
Been there done that.
If i did, i would be calling myself stupid... Actually no i wouldnt because i wasnt calling ANYONE stupid.
I said that doing something one way was stupid. I never said anything about any people being stupid.
I almost never attack persons(only if they really really deserve it badly). I attack arguments and ideas. Its a pity so many people seem incapable of noticing the difference.
When such are not part of the character creation system, its a matter of player preference.
When it IS part of the system...
My standard is that Flaws adds a trait at a higher numerical value than is otherwise possible.
A character with the flaw Greedy will have a Greedy trait at +4 or greater, without the flaw the character will at most have +3. ( i intentionally chose a personality flaw here as it makes the point more obvious)
What you´re saying is essentially to have them equal except that flaws "cause stories"...
Perhaps you should go back and actually try to understand what i really said and why i said it?'
You´re proving the point i stated then.
And i just KNEW someone would have to start this completely useless argument because of it...
The need to clearly and without a shadow of doubt show that modifying or breaking rules AND recommendations isnt taboo that will cause heaven to fall on your heads.
And as an aside, are you claiming to play the game 100% by the rules, zero houserules what so ever?
I wont say that would be unique, but i WILL say that its very likely a minority that does so.
Read above.
If i think something is dumb ill SAY so. If someone can show that im wrong, fine. As have been done a few times here.
And i wouldnt ever dream about trying to make others run with my rules, never EVER. I post my stuff either because i THINK they´re better, because i THINK they might add something useful or because they are useful as a comparison and might give others ideas on their own how they want to handle it in THEIR game.
I suggest, provide alternatives and speculate, and i question when i think someone is saying something strange or outright bad, but im actually LESS categorical about "how it should be played" than most others, including YOU in THIS thread.
So if thats your reason for skipping my posts, then you´re being hypocritical and thats not really my fault now is it.
Thats also one reason i barely ever put people on ignore or skip their posts, just because i dont like what they´re saying doesnt mean they´re wrong, just as the opposite is no more true. On >200 forums and after >150k posts, i´ve put 2 people on ignore total and their "nice" posts would get them banned instantly on any americanised forum.
Maybe you should read the thread before my post again. It was not relevant to the original subject of the thread but totally relevant to the discussion that followed.
No, i suggested why you should sometimes ignore or stretch the limits and why an official statement on such was needed because too many players take the rules TOO literally and are much too afraid to even consider breaking the rules.
You live in France! You would be highly unusual if you could live there and not take frankness.
Try looking up Paris-syndrome if you dont understand what im talking about.
Its about cultureshock by people coming to Paris/France from less expressive cultures, especially Japan, and just being unable to handle it.
I have to tone down myself severely on any forum that runs by american-style standards, and im yet to see any american last very long on a Swedish forum. Being straight and direct about what you think and using whatever words you want to to say it, thats normal on all Swedish forums im part of.
While on americanised forums, you can pretty much insult anyone as much as you want, as long as you do it indirectly, but say anything directly or use a minor curse and oh myyy its sooo horrible...
I allow for difference in culture and adapt as i can, i hope others can at least consider or try doing the same.
Please DO show where i ever did something like that. What i HAVE repeatedly said is that using make-believe physics eventually creates problems because sooner or later you run into something where it just goes odd.
And then there´s the problem that the same make-believe part is only based on an interpretation of what a small part of people at the time thought which means its not historically correct either, because those beliefs are simply the interpretations about REAL physics that SOME people came up with then.
Thats interpretation as i always actively avoid being snide. Caustic, ironic and sarcastic yes, snide or derogatory NO.
The problem here however isnt what I ACTUALLY WROTE, but YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.
Why shouldnt i have said that i´ve ignored those limits from start? WHY shouldnt i be allowed to say that i consider such EXACT and PRECISE limits to be foolishness? Trying to ALWAYS adhere to identical limits for ALL characters means you get limits that are, no fun and frankly will eventually be ridiculous in some cases and cause trouble for no good reason in other cases.
Context and previous posts and the fact that the point there was the fact that breaking the limits have never caused any problems at all. Thats the "explanation", the one that you failed to see because you preferred to give a lecture on something that wasnt connected to what i said.
Numerical limits on something that is greatly more variable even in reality might have good reasons to exist in a game, which is why it does, but not in AM because as i´ve stated many times before, you can adhere 100% and strictly to the rules and even the recommendations of the rule books and still min-max and be severely munchkin AND a powerhouse character.
I was in the middle of my reply when (finally!) it dawned on me: You were trolling me! 
And I was feeding you by the ton without even realizing it
Well done, old tytalus-style. Had you been more careful, I probably wouldn't have realized it at all 
I don't see interest to simplify the game, even for newcomers... - I was also fully beginner in rolegame playing
When I started in 2007, my husband first helped me to use it, then little by little I construct my characters by myself...
It is complex, complete, but not so complicated, specially 5th edition.