[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Colorblindness

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Fortunately he mostly stuck to solid colour dark suits but he kept buying ties...

So he had the Quirk "Wears 'unusual' ties"...


As a tie hater, I have to say, when forced to wear one I go straight for the worst possible fashion disaster I can. If I have to suffer, so does everyone else...

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Bruno

...
Colourblindness is easily justification for the occasional -1 (or even -2) reaction penalty for being a fashion disaster. Fortunately he mostly stuck to solid colour dark suits but he kept buying ties...

I think I've been asked if I were colorblind a few times, because I'm male and like certain pinks. I haven't worn any in over a decade for the odd reason that my girlfriend was born despising the color.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

So he had the Quirk "Wears 'unusual' ties"...


As a tie hater, I have to say, when forced to wear one I go straight for the worst possible fashion disaster I can. If I have to suffer, so does everyone else...

Unusual ties could sometimes work as a perk to suggest individuality in a field of conformists. Approachable and unique probably isn't something easy to convey in certain subcultures.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Unusual ties could sometimes work as a perk to suggest individuality in a field of conformists. Approachable and unique probably isn't something easy to convey in certain subcultures.

Right as a Perk it would indicate that he chooses ties that standout in good ways or positively add identifiers without detracting from the culture, as it's a positive trait.

A Quirk would mean he might often chose poorly... and thus engender mild (maybe -1) Reaction penalty from people who take such expressions poorly.

[Flyndaran]

Good point. It reminds me of The Birdcage how the colorful socks and nice bland suit made Nathan Lane's character somehow look more gay.

Or the issue with the plates. I now imagine someone being shocked that the Greek characters on their tie weren't playing leapfrog.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

A Quirk would mean he might often chose poorly... and thus engender mild (maybe -1) Reaction penalty from people who take such expressions poorly.

I've always allowed quirks that are very colorful but don't really have a negative effect other than making the character a tiny bit more predictable. I'd allow it with no other effect than making the character more colorful, and perhaps making people remember him more often.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've always allowed quirks that are very colorful but don't really have a negative effect other than making the character a tiny bit more predictable. I'd allow it with no other effect than making the character more colorful, and perhaps making people remember him more often.

Although it wasn't made explicit as a change from 3e, I get the feeling that 4e editorial policy wants Quirks to be substantially disadvantageous in at least some situations.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

Although it wasn't made explicit as a change from 3e, I get the feeling that 4e editorial policy wants Quirks to be substantially disadvantageous in at least some situations.

I think it’s more that too many quirks that appeared in 3e material didn’t do anything, at all. They don’t have to be an active liability, but they should say something more about the character than “wants a free point”. Having them explicitly provide the occasional -1 to reactions emphasises the point.

So those wacky ties can provide a -1 to reactions from the sartorially staid, or they can just get the wearer referred to a little sarcastically as “the individualist” and quickly spotted in a crowd, but they can’t just be ties.