Munchkin Edges/Flaws, What have you learned to ban? Options

[toturi]

[Tanka]

Anything can be munchkinized. All it takes is a creative mind to do so.

Read; no Flaws are munchkin. The use of them in certain instances, however, can be.

[calm_horizons]

[nezumi]

I kinda like the idea of karma for playing out flaws. I started playing the Serenity RPG where you have to have flaws in part because a good portion of your XP comes from running into them. So if you have a fear of albinos, if you don't react to albinos nothing bad happens (especially if you don't actually encounter any), but if you do run into some and react appropriately, that's XP in your pocket.

You already DO get XP for having edges. That's called getting the run finished. If you don't happen to find yourself in a situation where you can use your edge, it's just like if you don't happen to find a place where your flaws come into place: null gain either way.

As for the amnesia thing...

In a STANDARD game, I would say let the GM write the character history. If the PC feels it would be more fun to put in a few major details (a Tir Paladin, etc.), that's fine and good. But if he wants to write out his entire character sheet and backstory and just play that he doesn't remember it, in my standard game I would disallow it for several reasons:

1) As has been said, there's the story aspect. As a GM, my life is a lot easier and the game more exciting if discovering yourself is a challenge. The player not knowing is what makes the difference between watching a rerun where you already know how it ends, and watching a live car chase on TV.

2) That's a hefty chunk of points for that flaw. Hence, it should be a FLAW and some of that is the player not knowing if he should try a rifle or a handgun, or if maybe he should visit the library instead. No clue at all, is my point.

3) It's more fun for me, as the GM. I love to stick surprising things about the character in his sheet, to make the player say 'hey, that's cool!' I need the ammunition to do this. Letting the player peek at his background steals my fun.


Of course, if the player and the group say they'd have more fun doing it the other way, that's fine. If the group says they'd all like to play 1,000 BP characters and to get $60M at chargen, that's fine too. That is THEIR decision. If it sounds interesting to me, I'll try it. But I've found most of those games are very boring and die very quickly, hence, I like a little more challenge.

[Prosper]

One of my favorite flaws is Severe Allergy: Capsaicin. Spicy foods are very common, and the GM could easily kill my character with a well placed pepper ball.

[Fortune]

[toturi]

[Glyph]

I didn't read it that way, myself. I don't think the GM has problems if a Flaw doesn't come up, so much as when it could come up, and the player ignores it. In other words, not every run will include an encounter in an upscale restaurant where the Uncouth troll can do something vulgar or shocking. Heck, the meet with the Johnson could take place in a Redmond dive where eating with your hands and then belching loudly is considered normal behavior. But if the game does have meets at any upscale locations, and the troll's player just has the troll stand there like a statue, then he is refusing to roleplay a Flaw, and should be penalized, Karma-wise, or at least earn less roleplaying Karma.

[nezumi]

[toturi]

Then why make such a rule when it is simply the roleplaying karma you are denying(or awarding)?

[Eggs]

IMHO, GM approval is they key when it comes to edges, flaws, and munchkinism. Aptitude is a good example. I played in a few games where I was allowed to do things I definitely shouldn't have done, i.e, take aptitude fireams and have it stack with smartlink systems. At that time of my roleplaying career, it sounded like a great idea, and, of course, it worked amazingly well as far as doing the most possible damage per attack. But its stupid. Why the hell would you want to be able to take out a red samurai in a few shots? Why powergame at all?
As a general rule, I don't make characters based on concepts anymore. It's too easy to have a concept like 'Weapons Expert Sammy' or 'Combat Mage.' Roleplaying is a lot more fun when your character sucks slimy balls in general, has more prominent flaws than edges, or is in general just out of his element. That's when you start playing the role and stop worrying about the average successes you'll get with your firearms skill when you shoot multiple rounds with both hands while headbutting someone.
So, long story short, all the edges and flaws are equally munchkin if all you use them for is die bonuses.

[brohopcp]

[toturi]

[Drace]

[Critias]

[Drace]

hence why roleplayng isnt used for combat, matrix action and spell casting, accept to maybe to gain or lose dice because of the situation. Roleplaying is generally for social interactions (meating with contacts, buying/selling gear, meating johnsons)

[Eggs]

[caramel frappucc...]

[Cain]

Come on, guys, let's take a breather here....

Something you all are forgetting is that when a good GM sets up a game, he or she will let the players know roughly what kind of game to expect. High-powered, lots of flying lead, super-action campaign? Cool in my book. Super-subtle political intrigues? That's fine too. Dark mysteries into lost magical secrets? Rooby-Rooby-Roo. :grinbig:

If a player creates a character that is not fit for the game the GM is going to run, then the GM can and should ban it. A mismatched character will inevitably drag down the fun factor for the entire group. I *will* ban the Uncouth flaw, for example, if I'm running the super-political intrigue game-- roleplaying a tromping clod can be fun under the right circumstances, but these ain't it. Also, the GM has the right to ban certain edges/flaws if he doesn't think he can handle them properly in game; for example, I have banned Day Job, until I can figure out if it's really an Edge or a Flaw... I've been considering it on and off since the 2nd Ed Companion came out, and I still don't have an answer.

Now, some of us like super-amped characters. Which is perfectly fine, so long as your GM is running a campaign with super-amped opposition. Some people like the "street level", ganger-type games; those are fun as well, so long as I'm not running into the opposition from the super-amped game.

The bottom line is, the GM does have the final word about what will go on in the game. However, a good GM will make sure that the players *already know* what to expect. Based on that, the players will get a sense for what edges/flaws are going to be good, and which are going to be bad, for the overall fun factor of the game. Once the information is disseminated, players who buck the power curve are likely irresponsible and/or munchkinous, and GM's probably *will* need to ride herd on them.

As far as the roleplay goes, Toturi-- note that the book says +1 karma for "excellent" roleplaying. What each GM considers to be excellent will vary, but I'd say that roleplaying against your Flaws isn't "excellent roleplay". Really roleplaying *with* them, however, is definitely a step in the right direction, in my book at least. It's not the only method, but it's certainly one of them.

[Eggs]

[tisoz]

I usually ask how the player expects the flaw to come into play. This lets them see how much it should be worth or how debilitating it may become.

Infirm at up to 3 points should be about worthless, especially when following the guidelines about attributes above the racially modified limit being rare. Infirm at 4 points is just starting to be an impediment, and not much of one for magicians, deckers, or riggers.

A phobia I saw once was severe to stewed tomatos. Seemed the school cafeteria served them when his best friend goblinized, and when his dad got lost/blown up at Los Alamos. His grandparents served them right about the time his mom died during a bout of VITAS, etc. Every time it seemed like major crap dumped on him, stewed tomatos were somewhere near. The GM could have dropped major hints something bad was coming just by mentioning an NPC dining on them, or induce a bit of paranoi because you forget all the times you encountered stewed tomatos and nothing bad happened. ;)

Oh, yeah, phobias (and allergies) seem to get abused, too.

[Eggs]

Yech. I don't need any horrible coincidences to be terrified by stewed tomatoes :grinbig:

[toturi]

[DocMortand]

[toturi]

Hey, I was in a hurry....