Definition of 'disadvantage'

[shawnhcorey]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Indeed. There is no realism behind the assumption of zero-sum genetics. Or even zero-sum biology.

That's also why I have massive problems with RPG character creation systems where all the created characters come out equally powerful (that is, systems there there isn't or can't be a variable amount of character creation currency).

Agreed. Game balance is about balancing play time, not characters. If all players can equally contribute to success, then the game is balanced.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It is stupid and nonsensical, but RAW lists super smart but average perception as a disadvantage. But that's easily house ruled away.

If you want to. I wouldn't because it keeps that IQ! nonsense under control.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I think in 3rd Edition, only attributes lowered by 2 or more (or by more than 2?) were counted against the disadvantage limit.

It was 3 or more; an attribute of 7 was a disad, 8 was not.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by Leynok

It's common in my group for Attributes to not count as Disadvantages, and often when they do count, we're allowed up to -X in Attributes not counting against the limit, so long as we spend at least X in Attributes.

Based on every character I've ever seen actually played, that's hardly a limitation and seems to encourage abuses like [attribute]!.

Have you ever seen a character that this rule would limit?

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by Terwin

Are you familiar with the IQ! construct?(+1IQ,-1Per, -1 Will : 10 points/level)
or worse the HT! construct(+1HT, -0.25 Speed, FP-1 : 2 points/level)

These are arguments for counting attributes towards the disad limit.

Agreed. However, given that Attributes are as broad and important as they are, I think I'd be okay with not counting whole Attributes while counting sub-attributes. It prevents the above abuses and the general limit of raising sub-attributes by 30% would prevent most of the rest.

[cvannrederode]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Indeed. There is no realism behind the assumption of zero-sum genetics. Or even zero-sum biology.

That's also why I have massive problems with RPG character creation systems where all the created characters come out equally powerful (that is, systems there there isn't or can't be a variable amount of character creation currency).

The alternatives to balanced point buy systems (like GURPS), that I've seen implemented in games, is random by dice (mostly common), and the "me" character system where your character is based off of you, according to your fellow players (in V&V, and it added dice rolling on top of it). If there others, I haven't played them.

And although random dice rolls for attributes may be a more realistic representation of a genetic lottery, it can also suck if the dice hate you that day, especially if they really like other players at the same time. Yes, a good roleplayer will see that as a fun challenge, but having all characters on even footing ability wise is a concession made for equitable play-ability, over realism.

That being said...disadvantage limits are optional but suggested, IIRC. And there does come the point of diminishing returns. Yes, being a butt-ugly, dirt-poor, one-armed, wheel-chair bound, pyromanic, kleptomanic, leachorous, curious, fanatical whatever may give you lots of points for other things, but roleplaying that and being useful would be beyond challenging...in my opinion.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

I
I prefer simplicity,

I do too. That's why I never have a Disadvantage Limit and sidestep these arguments entirely.

How do I avoid abusive whatever behaviors? With the Dell'Orto DMG rule when necessary and it seldom is.

To those of you unfamiliar with this venerable practice when a Player is doing something you don't want to see in your game you rap his knuckles with the edge of the D&D 1st ed DMG and tell him "No!".

No Disad limit, no Attribute level limit, no Skill limit. Just a base points limit and the GM saying "No!" when necessary. It's really a lot simpler.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

A bit off-topic, but I'm fairly sure that isn't realistic at all. If anything, I would expect tall and strong people to have better mental abilities (wealth and better nutrition are linked to both height and intelligence, people with more mental discipline tend to exercise more).

"More mental discipline" has nothing to do with intelligence, except insofar as it allows you to make more effective use of it, (and pretty much everything else)

[kdtipa]

As a GM running a campaign, I included quirks in the disadvantage limit, but specifically did not include attributes. The way I see it, the purpose of putting a limit on the points for disadvantages is about stopping people from taking a long list of disadvantages that will make playing the character difficult and actually cause problems in sessions. Low attributes affect defaults and character abilities, but don't require the player to make their character behave in particular ways.

I want to avoid the Bad Tempered, Bloodthirsty, Callous, Selfish, Stubborn, Greedy, Miserly jerk that isn't going to fit into any group of characters and will likely cause problems in the group of players.

But a Bad Tempered, Stubborn jerk is at least playable, and if they happen to take a DX of 7 (getting 60 points back), well... that jerk is going to flub up a lot, and it might actually be an interesting combination.

I don't mind allowing characters to have points back for lowered attributes. I mind when players try to take a huge list of disadvantages that will mean a terrible gaming experience for everyone. And players REALLY have to be okay with lower attributes because they will make a lot of things a lot harder for the character.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by kdtipa

I want to avoid the Bad Tempered, Bloodthirsty, Callous, Selfish, Stubborn, Greedy, Miserly jerk that isn't going to fit into any group of characters and will likely cause problems in the group of players.

.

Also to be avoided are too many Disads that make work for the GM. Enemies, Dependents and other ones that require the GM to prepare in advance and probably change the planned session.

This is another thing that a flat Disad Limit won't protect you from from but judgment and discretion will.