Some people have strong opinions on the concept of disadvantages giving extra points (or whatever) in character creation, claiming that they should instead only reward the player if and when they come up in gameplay (Hollow Earth Expedition is one example of a game that has that as a built-in mechanic).

However, the counterpart - that is, that players should be compensated somehow if an opion they PAID points for in character creation never comes up in gameplay, is practically never attempted.

Thoughts?

>>96012364 (OP)
That's an issue with the GM not finding ways to take advantage of those things. Equally, the player is has some responsibility to not simply take the malus and pretend it doesn't exist and be made to work through/around it.

>>96012364 (OP)
Balance is the duty of the GM but most forget it starts by selecting your players first.

>>96012364 (OP)
That sounds like something to talk to the DM about

>>96012407
Perfect balance is also a myth that'll turn you into a garbage DM if you persue.
Sometimes, something being "unbalanced" isn't an issue because it makes the game more fun. GMs that don't understand this can end up down a rabbit hole that lead one guy to arguing all PCs must use the commoner class because PC classes are too "unbalanced". I'm now the new DM for that group.

I'm reminded of D&D3.5 Vow of Poverty, with a monk the drawback was basically non-existent because you didn't care about maguc weapons anyway.

If a player has something on their sheet at game start it is pivotal to their character and should be expected to be relevant multiple times.

>>96012494
>with a monk the drawback was basically non-existent
What kind of low level games were you playing anon? At level 10+, that lack of magic items is gonna Cripple a monk from lack of wondrous items gimping their movement. The party caster is basically stuck playing babysitter&combat-dasher for their ass just so they can function.

>>96012486
Players cannot argue or predict balance because the DM is the one running the campaign. They however, must accept the changes their characters go through throughout the campaign. A lot of players get attached and have a very specific vision of their characters and I blame lonely DMs who don't have a heart to kick them off the table. Spineless players (and DMs) are cause of ALL problems.

>>96012364 (OP)
>only reward the player if and when they come up in gameplay
This is so bizarre. I've never heard of this in other games. Other games always saddle you with disadvantages with no compensation and just say "tough luck!" I do think what other games do is kind of shitty in long-term campaigns, though.
I personally try to strike a middle ground when I GM. I keep track of the approximate point value of my players' PCs. If some are lagging behind the rest of the party, then I don't magically give them XP to compensate, but I might arrange circumstances to either fix their disadvantages through roleplay, or gain new compensating advantages if it would make sense.

>>96012527
Monks attacks became magical. Well, not quite, but basically as good as a magical weapon that got better as they levelled.

>>96012486
I think I agree, supposing I'm understanding you correctly. Pretty much the only balance you need in a game is making sure that each PC has their niche where they shine and that actually comes up in the game. This usually isn't a problem in actually good games with a variety of obstacles for the PCs to overcome. Problems only arise when there's only one type of obstacle to overcome (e.g., combat) and everyone wants to do the same thing (e.g., dealing big dick damage).

>>96012781
This. I remember one game where I played cavalier and DM put us in 10ft hallway dungeon crawl (I talked to DM and he didn't mention anything on session 0 about it)

>>96012364 (OP)
make a character like they're a real person rather than a stat sheet. If their disadvantages come up in play, fine, if not, lucky you.
>that is, that players should be compensated somehow if an opion they PAID points for in character creation never comes up in gameplay
I guess like purchasing the "blacksmithing" skill but never needing to forge anything so it's practically useless? Seems more like a feature than a bug to me. You made a real person, real people aren't optimized for whatever adventure the GM has. Also it could just be a creativity issue on the players part.

>>96012364 (OP)
Don't make a character that doesn't fit into the game you're playing. It's that simple.

If you want to play a certain type of character, find a game that will accommodate it. It's that simple.

You will literally never run into this kind of problem ever again in any game you play.

>>96012364 (OP)
Doesn't Fate let you trade skills/etc. if you don't use them?

>>96012771
Good for him, it still doesn't change the fact he'll need wondrous items for when he's fighting flying, teleporting, intangible, etc creatures, which he can't have if he's got VoP.
If the only thing you see is "damage go up" and think that's good enough to run a game, then I find it hard to believe you've ever played an actual game in your life.

>>96012364 (OP)
>players should be compensated somehow if an opion they PAID points for in character creation never comes up in gameplay, is practically never attempted.
In my experience most GMs will allow retiring/suiciding the character and rerolling new one on the same level, with better invested points.

>>96012486
Overbalancing almost without fail, results in everybody being mediocre.

My experience is if you paid points for an advantage that you never use due to the campaign, usually most GMs will allow you to get a refund and choose something else.

>>96015402
The vast majority of games that exist might as well not even bother with character sheets, because the second you start fudging results as the GM is the second you chose to not play the game, rendering everything else about it null and void.

>>96015758
Yeah, that's the literal point of balance, Anon. Attempting to turn it into a bad thing simply tells us you're incapable of having g fun unless you are blatantly better than your peers, regardless of flavor or playstyle.

>>96015758
>everybody being mediocre.
And why would everyone being average be a bad thing?

>>96016066
>>96016148

NTA but it's not so much a matter of being, but a matter of feeling. A system that's "overbalanced" (not my favorite word but we'll go with it for now) is a system that destroys character's capability for the sole reason that it might overshadow another option. Leaving a system that makes what are supposed to be heroes feel a bit anemic.
This can be kind of subjective what's "overbalanced" to one player might be perfectly balanced to another, but it's still an argument to be had.

4e D&D is an example of it to a degree (I personally don't feel this way, but some do), but to better illustrate it imagine 4e D&D without Daily Powers or Encounter Powers.
This would probably be more "balanced" (assuming the math was adjusted to account obviously), but every character would be even less powerful, interesting, and more bland and similar. In a game that already consistently receives this complaint from people.

This is presumably what he means by "overbalanced." It's not too balanced to be good, but too balanced to be interesting.

>>96012494
The 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds remains the worst RPG book ever made.

>thoughts
My thoughts are that the advantages and disadvantages of character options should be baked into the options themselves, and the options should only ever revolve around playing the game.
There shouldn't ever be a scenario where the function of an option of the game never comes up during gameplay; if that happens, that option shouldn't exist, or the game shouldn't involve that kind of scenario.

For instance, a person playing baseball shouldn't ever have to prepare to enter a body of water at any time during a game. Baseball doesn't involve water, so a player's kit shouldn't include a choice of scuba gear or wakeboards.

>>96012364 (OP)
I'm a big fan of merits/flaws from like V20. But the issue there is that not all disadvantages are created equal, and neither are all merits. The best ones are the ones that, for positive or negative, help you add story value. Matter of fact, pretty much every time systems have mechanics like this, they're just horribly fucking imbalanced.
The solution would be to standardize exactly what a merit/flaw can and can't do, and tie that to its point cost. Certain tiers can only enable some form of interaction, but add no bonuses, some tiers can only add bonuses, etc. Basically, just give them firmer mechanical consistency so they can be more objective indicators, more like an attribute.

>>96018414
Honestly a pacifist class I saw like ten years ago was better at waging peace than someone with basically infinite AC because it would pile on negative levels like an incubus gangrape

>>96012364 (OP)
This really depends on the kind of game you're running, but usually it's on the player to put their character in a situation where his skills are useful. Don't make a character you can't pilot. Naturally everyone should have a decent idea of what kind of challenges to expect in the game, and the GM should stop players from making idiotic characters - or at least ask them if they really want to hunt the Predator as a yuppie accountants. But to give points back just because players can't make full use of their skills seems counterproductive to roleplaying.

>>96016066
>>96016148
Anons, has it ever occured to you that many people have zero interest in playing the average joe and instead play TTRPGs to roleplay as a band of badass hero that do cool shit? You sound like your favorite food is a plain cheese sandwich and paint your houses grey.

>>96018414
Oh you sweet summer child, it get So Much worse...

>>96016058
>Think most games are narrative systems
I'm sorry for what you've gone through to make you like this, but it doesn't excuse the person that you've become.

>>96019800
sounds weird to me that VTM doesn't have different flaws count differently, since that's how it works in pretty much every game I've seen that has a combination of freeform character building and an edges/flaws system, like in Shadowrun 3e where a character with a phobia gets a different amount of points for it depending on its severity and how common the trigger is.

>>96020828
They do count differently, just in a way that's totally unbalanced with no real mechanical consistency.

>>96021629
>totally unbalanced with no real mechanical consistency.
oh so they did do it just with that classic White Wolf flair