Are quirks officially counted as disadvantages?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Kraydak

So how much does Race:foo (-20, made up of a -30 and a +10) count towards the disad limit, 20 or 0 (30, I presume, is right out)?

Foo (Racial package) [-20] is a -20-point disadvantage.

Bar (Meta-Trait) [-20] is a -20-point disadvantage.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by zack_black

Wow ok why is there still an argument about this?

Krohm said "Quirks = Disadvantages and thus count towards your disadvantage total". That, to me, would be an official ruling on the question and thus make it RAW.

That is a very poor characterization of what he said, and the use of quotes flirts with the mods' interpretation of personal attack.

Kromm said that quirks are disadvantages, and went on to discuss what else is considered a disadvantage. He did not comment on the disad limit, probably [because] there is no official, specific disad cap to comment on. The 50% rule of thumb is used because it provides a widely portable standard, but is soft-pedaled to let GMs feel empowered to use a different cap or none at all as it suits their game.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by zack_black

Wow ok why is there still an argument about this?

Krohm said "Quirks = Disadvantages and thus count towards your disadvantage total". That, to me, would be an official ruling on the question and thus make it RAW.

That to me is a bad quote by you vainly trying to twist a writer's comment into justifying a "disad total" as RAW, instead of the dumb optional rule it actually is.

Disad limits are not RAW, they are an optional rule intended for bad gaming groups with GM vs. Player issues.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Not just the ridiculously low point, but when a GM is imposing Quirks as part of an optional silly disad limit it hints at an antagonistic relationship of GM vs. players.

Actually, you can spin that the other way just as easily - he's generously permitting you to run your disadvantages up to the limit without taking something actually very disadvantageous for the last 5 points of it. For that matter, it's just as reasonable to say complaining about the disadvantage cap hints at an antagonistic player who is going to be a troublemaker for the whole game. Either of those *could* be true, but deserves the benefit of the doubt at least.

Point values, disadvantage caps, what counts as a disadvantage, UB costs, and what disadvantages (and advantages) I won't allow at all no matter what the point values are, are no more adversaral than deciding on a genre, setting the rules is what the GM is *for*.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

That to me is a bad quote by you vainly trying to twist a writer's comment into justifying a "disad total" as RAW, instead of the dumb optional rule it actually is.

Disad limits are not RAW, they are an optional rule intended for bad gaming groups with GM vs. Player issues.

Now I think you go too far. I have always used disad limits. But the groups I've GM'd are not now, nor have they every been, "bad gaming groups with GM vs. Player issues."

Restrictions can be aids to creativity in much the same way that Shakespeare created magic while still adhering to the sonnet form.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

That is a very poor characterization of what he said, and the use of quotes flirts with the mods' interpretation of personal attack.

Kromm said that quirks are disadvantages, and went on to discuss what else is considered a disadvantage. He did not comment on the disad limit, probably there is no official, specific disad cap to comment on. The 50% rule of thumb is used because it provides a widely portable standard, but is soft-pedaled to let GMs feel empowered to use a different cap or none at all as it suits their game.

This is worth reiterating. The key point of 4e even more than other editions, is FUN. The disad limit is ONLY there to give guidelines on what will be a fun, playable character. GMs and players who feel that 'real' roleplaying doesn't require points can just play that way. GMs and players who can handle the constraints of very large, severe disad totals can do that too. Most can only keep a few major things like that in check at once, thus the recommendation.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Actually, you can spin that the other way just as easily - he's generously permitting you to run your disadvantages up to the limit without taking something actually very disadvantageous for the last 5 points of it. For that matter, it's just as reasonable to say complaining about the disadvantage cap hints at an antagonistic player who is going to be a troublemaker for the whole game. Either of those *could* be true, but deserves the benefit of the doubt at least.

Point values, disadvantage caps, what counts as a disadvantage, UB costs, and what disadvantages (and advantages) I won't allow at all no matter what the point values are, are no more adversaral than deciding on a genre, setting the rules is what the GM is *for*.

Originally Posted by trooper6

Now I think you go too far. I have always used disad limits. But the groups I've GM'd are not now, nor have they every been, "bad gaming groups with GM vs. Player issues."

Restrictions can be aids to creativity in much the same way that Shakespeare created magic while still adhering to the sonnet form.

I'll stick to the line that Disad limits are an indication of a bad GM player dynamic.
The GM is either antagonistic, or he's gotten burned by Munchkin players in the past and he's ham handing his way instead of growing some b...sense and actually looking at the characters submitted.

I've been running GURPS for over 20 years now and I've never had a player submit more disads than they wanted to roleplay, in fact, outside of genres like Supers and such, I have a hard time getting players to take more than 30 points worth of disads.

As for the sheer unrealistic silliness of disad limits at low points, I again refer to the Ordinary People thread.

When someone says they reconcile in their mind a lower point value character with less disads that is a leading indicator that such a person doesn't understand what a point value system means.

[roguebfl]

yes IQ 15 Will 12 count against the disad limit because it has a Negative point cost. Some people see this is sill but they also often the same people com plain that IQ! is broken.

(This is totally separate from the group that don't care about point balance at all and only feel the need to ok the concept and wither the abilit matches the concept)

Also While Racial packages are black boxes, if your Racial Package has an advantage X that you don't want the have then Does not have X [-N] counts for N against your Disad limit.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

The GM is either antagonistic, or he's gotten burned by Munchkin players in the past and he's ham handing his way instead of growing some b...sense and actually looking at the characters submitted.

I've been running GURPS for over 20 years now and I've never had a player submit more disads than they wanted to roleplay, in fact, outside of genres like Supers and such, I have a hard time getting players to take more than 30 points worth of disads.

Let's not forget that the entire point of disadvantages is to bribe the munchkins, and the disadvantage limit never restricts the maximum number of problems you can *play*, only the maximum number you get points back for them. Strangely you rarely see character designs that take anything that exceeds the cap and accept getting no points for the excess.

I'll even concede that the ideal may well be to say "There's no limit on disadvantages, take as many as you want, all of them are worth 0 points." but I bet if you do you'll see even fewer characters pushing toward that notional -30.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I'll stick to the line that Disad limits are an indication of a bad GM player dynamic.
The GM is either antagonistic, or he's gotten burned by Munchkin players in the past and he's ham handing his way instead of growing some b...sense and actually looking at the characters submitted.

This is rude. I always use disad limits, yet:

1) I have a great GM-player dynamic.
2) I am not antagonistic towards my players
3) Have never had a Munchkin player give me problems with disads
4) I always look at and approve submitted characters.

So, either you are calling me a liar--which is rude...or you are making sweeping generalizations wherein you treat your biases as objective reality. Also rude.

Why can't you just say something like, "The question of whether Quirks count as disads doesn't apply to my games because I don't use disad limits. I don't use disad limits because *insert positive, non-judgemntal statement about your preferred method.* Why do you have to turn this into, "People who use disad limits are bad GMs."

I don't say you are a bad GM because you don't use limits.