It's been a while since I posted, for which I apologize.
in MET (at least the original version) taking flaws or negative traits (such as being cowardly or obnoxious) gives you points to make your character sheet more complete. I often see individuals picking flaws based on which will least inconvenience them.
To me that ignores the beauty of what flaws are. Flaws don't limit your character. They make your character better.
An Example: Shanghai Kelly is a Gangrel PC based in San Francisco. He happens to be a funny and clever conversationalist. But he is incredibly tactless (or obnoxious maybe, I'm not going to say what is on his sheet, and I really don't know). He'll say rude things he shouldn't, and get shushed for it. He'll piss people off. He'll yell at people, or question people who don't like to be questioned. He'll get mad for no good reason.
Now that might seem like a bad thing, if you play larp to play the perfect vampire that makes no mistakes and destroys his enemies. But that's a pretty boring PC to play. You can play that PC sitting in your haven, and not come to game, and nobody will miss you. People miss Shanghai. It's an occasion when somebody doesn't give him a roleplay nod. His roleplay is entertaining. He helps make game fun for others.
Flaws do that, much more then advantages. There are also Derangements, which are the way the game handles some mental dysfunction or disorder. I know several people that pick the derangments that effect their behavior the least. Or individuals who's derangement manifests only in downtime, or only when in the presence of NPCs. While I don't believe the any character should be defined by their derangement, if it doesn't effect your roleplay, what's the point?
Another Example: The Herald, a malkavian PC in Berkeley. He's clearly schizophrenic, to the point where people wonder about the player, until they chat with him after game. But his madness comes out in his interactions.
Of course screwing up in character doesn't have to be about what's on your sheet. Sometimes you can make a choice that you know OOC may cause your PC problems. Fun problems, that require lots of interactions with other players to work through. A PC I know got captured by the Sabbat, and turned into a Mole. The player volunteered for this to happen. Her character got punished severely for it. And yet that's changed the dynamics of the Sabbat plot from being lead by her Prince to being run by Archons, and created at least three new plots from the fall out(that I know of).
Of course screwing up in character works best if you have support from other players. If a Prince's immediate response to an IC screw up is to kill the character, well that may create future plot, but it puts an end to the screw-ups story. PCs who die silently unnoticed in back rooms with no one to miss them don't make for good plots. Though sometimes killing the wrong character is a form of screwing up in and of itself.
So I guess my point is, play your flaws, in ways that make you interact with others. When others have IC problems, get involved if you can, and try not to put an end to their story inherently. Doing so can lead to great roleplay, and great stories, and most importantly, fun.
I wanted to comment here in the hope that it added to discussion of some sort.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of flaws and character defining attributes on the sheet, I wanted to point toward humanity specifically. While not a flaw, it is an important dictator of how one should or could play their character. Someone with Humanity 4, for example, should have reservations about destroying property and hurting others (at least by the book interpretation). Too often, you'll see players remorselessly commit sins and rely only upon their conscience to save them from an unfortunate loss of personality. I often compare the Humanity system to alignment in D+D, with the higher end of the spectrum falling toward Lawful Good and the lower toward Neutral Evil. Not an exact comparison, mind you, but one close enough.
Roleplaying the benefits and flaws inherent in Humanity should provide as much insight to a character as other merits and flaws on the sheet could possibly hope to. For example, my now deceased PC was a 3 Humanity Prince and toiled over the decision to enact the Camarilla's justice on two individuals who committed offenses against the city. Ultimately, the seeds of my praxis loss were laid when I initially refused to order their destruction and instead only their torpor, due to their crimes not meriting my perception of a justified execution. Two incredible scenes of shouting occurred between the Primogen Council which hoped to destroy them literally and my Prince who refused such a grievous punishment. Regardless, my point is that holding steadfast to the tenets of morality can provide as much, or more, definition and excitement than flaws.
I also brought this topic up because I've seen too myna players who conveniently cast aside the importance of their Path/Humanity rating in favor of benefiting their character. Diablerie, murder, or conniving of all sorts often justify players wholly ignoring this important attribute. That's simply bad playing and shouldn't be tolerated. While there can certainly be several types of Humanity portrayals, such as a penitent Humanity 1 character who realizes his sins and wants to recover, versus those who embrace their savage side, there should be common elements enough that it should not be disregarded as an element for RP considerations.
Just my $0.02 to add to another excellent blog.
~Daniel Kotlewski