I was having a think about some Personality Flaws I have issues with, as I think Personality Flaws should determine something that a character will or will not do, whereas General or Supernatural Flaws indicate things a character can't do. I think the following should be General: Poor Memory, Short Attention Span, Simple-Minded and Weak-Willed. I would also classify Prohibition as a Supernatural Flaw.
Even agreeing with this, I think the pragmatic split is between flavour and roleplaying as personality flaws and mechanical intervention as other flaws.
Ask youself, would the SG ever interfer and say that the character cannot do something with relation to each of these problematic flaws?
The distinction is important because the character is only allowed so many flavour flaws. The rest have to have real mechanical consequence. Recategorising, one should make sure that they do have that.
Sure, the answer may depend on the SG, troupe, and/or play-style, so maybe we should not have a universal answer.
1 Like
If you want Prohibition as a Supernatural Flaw, you could take Lesser Malediction for the same result, right?
Prohibition is a Supernatural Flaw according to the latest errata.
2 Likes
To answer your question, I would tell the player the character couldn't do some things because of Flaw choices. Someone with Poor Memory, for instance, couldn't suddenly remember things perfectly when it suited them. Someone with the Weak-Willed flaw couldn't start acting tough to someone who was intimidating them, or be mistrustful of a very charismatic charlatan. On the other hand, under the right circumstances I'd let players act contrary to their characters' Personality Flaws, although it might require a Personality Trait roll.
That's the kicker for me. You'd hope the SG doesn't need to, as you'd hope the player plays their character's personality flaws well, however, the option for the SG to intervene is critical.
For example - The character who has a compassionate major flaw, can never choose to risk a hostage. If the player says they do, the SG say no.
Minor Flaw, I'd say the character can make a personality check roll, and if successful risk the hostage, however, if the character fails and the hostage dies, the compassionate flaw is replaced with low self-esteem.
Non mechanical flaws need to affect how a character acts. They need to inconvenience the player, or they aren't flaws. It can be a "helpful" inconvenience in a game sense, such as driving a story, but it has to matter.
To go back to the OP, some personality flaws with some mechanics, such as church upbringing, I consider fine in a personality flaw. The being an orphan, having certain people who know disrespect the character, there are story impacts over and above the mechanical.
I agree. The same holds for personality traits, even if they are freely chosen without recompense by the player. If you have decided that your shield grog is a Glutton +3, and would have him pass a chance to taste some delicacy, the troupe can force you to make a personality roll for him and narrate the results.
Well ... he could, agonizingly, if it were e.g. to save a bunch of kids!
I disagree that Personality Flaws necessarily have to inconvenience the player. I mean, when I take a Personality Flaw such as Avaricious (particularly at Major) for one of my characters, I'm exploring the game Ars Pecuniae - how rich can I make my character, everything else be damned? I do not consider that an inconvenience for me ... though possibly for the other characters!
Canonically, ezzelino's take is correct:
General Flaws do not have to enhance stories, and Personality and Story Flaws do not have to hinder the character. (p.36)
Rather than inconveniencing a character, Personality Flaws are supposed to enhance stories:
General Flaws hinder the character, Personality and Story Flaws enhance stories. (p.36)
That doesn't mean they cannot inconvenience a character. It's just that that is not necessary.