Full Version: Pimp my Negative Quality!
| QUOTE |
| NAIVE (+5 BP) A character with the Naive quality lacks the healthy skepticism and misanthropic nature that most shadowrunners possess, believing all people she encounters to be essentially good. The Naive character feels that each and every one of her antagonists "just needs a second chance," and this makes her unusually inclined to trust others to "do the right thing" - no matter how frequently or flagrantly these individuals have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Apply a -2 modifier to the character's dice pool in any Opposed Con Tests in which she is the target of the con. |
What do you guys think? Should I change the penalty?
I like it, it's a classic RPG flaw. Couple of comments though. Increase the value to at least +10. As far as I can tell a +5 flaw is practically character fluff and easy to avoid. +10 is something that is going to bite you on the arse either mildly about once a session or severely every few sessions. So by my estimation Naive is worth at least +10.
Also, I would consider expanding the range of sitiations the dice penelty applies to for internal and thematic consistancy. I'd apply it to: All Negotiation rolls, on the basis that you're at a disadvantage if you don't really believe that the other guy is trying to screw you; to resisting Leadership rolls, s/he's the leader, s/he must know what's best after all; to Composure (WIL + CHA), because you just can't believe this is happening; and Judge Intention (INT + CHA), because you already assume they intend the best for you, all in addition to CON tests.
If you included all this, that might up it to +15, which I like to think of as anything that has a good chance of hurting you at least a little multiple times per session unless you take real percautions. But then again a Mild Allergy (-2 dice on all actions) to Sunlight (it's up there in the sky, just waiting for you to come out side about half the time) is only +10, so I guess I'd give the expanded version I've proposing a value of +10.
Also, I would consider expanding the range of sitiations the dice penelty applies to for internal and thematic consistancy. I'd apply it to: All Negotiation rolls, on the basis that you're at a disadvantage if you don't really believe that the other guy is trying to screw you; to resisting Leadership rolls, s/he's the leader, s/he must know what's best after all; to Composure (WIL + CHA), because you just can't believe this is happening; and Judge Intention (INT + CHA), because you already assume they intend the best for you, all in addition to CON tests.
If you included all this, that might up it to +15, which I like to think of as anything that has a good chance of hurting you at least a little multiple times per session unless you take real percautions. But then again a Mild Allergy (-2 dice on all actions) to Sunlight (it's up there in the sky, just waiting for you to come out side about half the time) is only +10, so I guess I'd give the expanded version I've proposing a value of +10.
I agree. This should leave a runner so screwed when dealing with Mr. J one-on-one.
on a nitpicky side note, fragrant means it smells nice. *flagrant* means blatantly, openly, obviously, etc.
otherwise, looks good to me =)
otherwise, looks good to me =)
| QUOTE (Jaid @ Sep 4 2006, 11:31 PM) |
| on a nitpicky side note, fragrant means it smells nice. *flagrant* means blatantly, openly, obviously, etc. otherwise, looks good to me =) |
Fixed.
For what it's worth, I knew the difference; I just mistyped! I like Meta's suggestions, though of course I'll have to sleep on them. Thanks much!
EDIT: I might consider adding the penalty to Etiquette dice rolls, too. ("Of course he's a real policeman! He showed me a badge and everything!")
Also, you make an interesting point about the sun, but that can easily be avoided: you can wear lots of protective clothing and sunscreen, and only go out when it's cloudy. Therefore, the +10 flaw is probably justified.
EDIT2: Oh yeah, and it's always raining in Seattle!
| QUOTE (FanGirl @ Sep 5 2006, 04:50 AM) |
| Also, you make an interesting point about the sun, but that can easily be avoided: you can wear lots of protective clothing and sunscreen, and only go out when it's cloudy. Therefore, the +10 flaw is probably justified. |
Protective clothing? A minor allergy is probably just an itching sensation or mild discomfort, in terms of flavour. The -2 is probably equivalent to the penalty you would take for trying to operate in those conditions.
I actually do have an eye condition that would equate to minor allergy: sunlight. I even had the matching skin-condition for a while. Even an overcast day like today, I need category 2 or 3 sunglasses just to drive. I would say that a -2 penalty for a bright day is about right. It is -1 for glare, -1 for the loss of peripheral vision from dark glasses. Cat 4 glasses would negate that penalty but start to restrict direct vision too. (in the UK, it is not legal to drive with Cat 4 lenses)
As for more physical tasks, well -2 for skin-discomfort is about right. Even through a long-sleeved shirt, it used to hurt. On bare skin, I used to get a rash that would come up in a matter of perhaps 30 seconds. Fast enough to look like I was blistering. And a -2 penalty to social skills is generous if you just watched someone blister under direct sunlight.
Xeroderma Pigmentosum would fit the 20-pt version of sunlight allergy though...
I think it's pretty weird for a PC. The character's outlook as you describe it seems completely at odds with someone who has chosen the life of a professional criminal or "shooter of trouble". I think its value should be 10 for shadowrunners and 5 for normal people. I would also expect it to get traded off pretty early in a campaign for some other flaw(s) after their first nervous breakdown.
I'd recomend a moderate addiction to Zen, Bliss, or Longhaul. "Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Can't sleep, clown will eat me..."
It is pretty weird for a PC. That's why it's a flaw. It's also a nice RP mechanic. And in less Grim and Gritty games (such as ones involving, say, Flamingly Gay Trolls) it might fit in just fine.
But it's easy enough to add to a character.
Maybe they run the shadows because they truly believe the corps are causing the death of the human spirit, and they want to bring them down to let humanity truly be free. They distrust all corps, but believe their fellow Man can do no wrong.
Maybe they only take jobs they feel to be "right" and not criminal.
Maybe they simply don't understand what it is they're doing - they could be somewhat touched, and simply be unable to make the connection between their actions and the negative results. THey might see it all as a game, and be genuinely puzzled if you tried to explain to them that the people won't get up after you leave.
Maybe they're self-deluding. Their parents lied and betrayed them, and ever since, they have brightly assumed that everyone is on the up and up, because dammit, they need the world to be that way.
I do agree that it has a nice potential to cause a snap that results in a replacement negative quality fairly easily, though. Which would be a nice session.
But I've known people that fit this category that were involved in traditionally cynical businesses, so it does happen.
And in less Grim and Gritty games (such as ones involving, say, Flamingly Gay Trolls) it might fit in just fine.But it's easy enough to add to a character.
Maybe they run the shadows because they truly believe the corps are causing the death of the human spirit, and they want to bring them down to let humanity truly be free. They distrust all corps, but believe their fellow Man can do no wrong.
Maybe they only take jobs they feel to be "right" and not criminal.
Maybe they simply don't understand what it is they're doing - they could be somewhat touched, and simply be unable to make the connection between their actions and the negative results. THey might see it all as a game, and be genuinely puzzled if you tried to explain to them that the people won't get up after you leave.
Maybe they're self-deluding. Their parents lied and betrayed them, and ever since, they have brightly assumed that everyone is on the up and up, because dammit, they need the world to be that way.
I do agree that it has a nice potential to cause a snap that results in a replacement negative quality fairly easily, though. Which would be a nice session.
But I've known people that fit this category that were involved in traditionally cynical businesses, so it does happen.
I wouldn't set it in stone that the character is naive.
It could be that he is naive, but it could be many other things like difficulty at reading body language or being a bit slow to process the implications of what you are being told.
I'd just call the flaw : 'Mark' (as in, you are the con's mark) or something like that.
Typical SR's flaw are mechanical and the PC decides how it will affect his roleplay.
I'd also extend the penalty to any opposed social test where there is an element of deception.
That means all con test but also most negociation and some intimidation (If a bully pretend he is more influent than he really is, for example).
It could be that he is naive, but it could be many other things like difficulty at reading body language or being a bit slow to process the implications of what you are being told.
I'd just call the flaw : 'Mark' (as in, you are the con's mark) or something like that.
Typical SR's flaw are mechanical and the PC decides how it will affect his roleplay.
I'd also extend the penalty to any opposed social test where there is an element of deception.
That means all con test but also most negociation and some intimidation (If a bully pretend he is more influent than he really is, for example).
I'd double the penalty at least, and/or apply to more social situations.
But this is the flaw that I would encourage players to "buy off" soon, as I just don't see mr 40 karma shadowrunner who has been screwed over so many times still go around like a child.
But this is the flaw that I would encourage players to "buy off" soon, as I just don't see mr 40 karma shadowrunner who has been screwed over so many times still go around like a child.
| QUOTE (Charon) |
| I'd just call the flaw : 'Mark' (as in, you are the con's mark) or something like that. |
It's a bit mundane, but how about simply "Trusting"?
That would include both the naive variety, inability to discern lies or just being a reckless optimist when judging people.
howzabout just calling it "SUCKER" then every time he fails a roll because of the flaw, everyone at the table can say it "SUCKER."
Dont forget that this would definitely apply to seduction situations too.
Dont forget that this would definitely apply to seduction situations too.
Sounds like a brain injury resulting in absolute fearlessness - which unfortunatly removes caution, too.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.