Just a quick question about quirks

[jamesfoxbr]

Read what Kromm said here: http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...61&postcount=6http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...61&postcount=6

Quirks are not Disadvantages

[Phantasm]

Rule Zero: The GM decides whether there's a disadvantage limit, and whether quirks count towards it.

The GM may also decide that there is no limit to the number of quirks, or may say eight or ten quirks, not just five.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Grey Goblin

I haven't played for awhile, so please excuse a newbie question...

Are quirks included in the Disadvantage Limit?

Absolutely. The Basic Set is explicit that anything with a negative point cost -- including disadvantages, quirks, attributes below 10, and secondary characteristics lowered below base value -- counts toward any disadvantage limit set by the GM.

That said, nearly every GM I know -- and every worked-genre book so far, like those of Dungeon Fantasy -- phrases the disadvantage limit as (e.g.), "-50 points total, plus -5 in quirks." It's clearer, and it makes it clear that the GM would prefer you don't skip works in favor of just taking a total of -55 points in disadvantages. Some GMs take it further: "up to -70 from disadvantages, -20 from reduced attributes or characteristics, and -5 from quirks."

Originally Posted by jamesfoxbr

Read what Kromm said here: http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...61&postcount=6http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...61&postcount=6

Quirks are not Disadvantages

Kromm neither stated nor implied in that thread that quirks shouldn't count against the disadvantage limit. The context of that thread was about whether quirks had a strict limit of "five per character" or whether that was flexible, and that's what that reply was toward. If you'll read Dungeon Fantasy 1: Adventurers, you'll note that the box on disadvantage limits definitely included quirks (in a "-50 plus -5" scheme, as mentioned above).

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by PK

Absolutely. The Basic Set is explicit that anything with a negative point cost -- including disadvantages, quirks, attributes below 10, and secondary characteristics lowered below base value -- counts toward any disadvantage limit set by the GM.

Yes. The "anything with a negative point cost" definition is early on. (No books handy, but it's at the beginning of Characters, probably intro text for Disadvantages.) It mentions a number of specific categories. Quirks aren't included by name in the enumerated examples, but there's an "and so on".

But then, the text for Quirks is also explicit (and quoted in the referenced Krommquote): "It has a negative point value, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage."

These two statements are contradictory. Either everything with a negative point cost is a Disad, no matter what; or there are some exceptions where at least some Quirks with a negative point cost are nevertheless not Disads. Both statements can't be true at once. The contradiction has nothing to do with Disad limits. These statements are simply about category.

- All traits with a negative point cost are Disads
- All Quirks have a negative point cost
= Therefore, Quirks are Disads
- But, not all Quirks are Disads

At least one of our three axioms must be false.

Not a big deal, and easily dealt with in real life. But as long as we're quoting scripture, we have to face the fact that the text is self-contradictory. Perhaps there's a perfectionist that feels up to writing the errata. Then that can be filed at the bottom of the priority list where it belongs, and the text will eventually be updated, perhaps in 5e.

I'll be sad that Bertrand Russell has to drop out of my group, no longer being able to enjoy a game that includes this sort of flaw, but the rest of us will struggle on somehow.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

But then, the text for Quirks is also explicit (and quoted in the referenced Krommquote): "It has a negative point value, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage."

Could that just be incautious use of a term of art in its non-term-of-art meaning? A quirk has a point value of [-1] and in that sense is a Disadvantage, but a quirk does not have to be disadvantageous.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Could that just be incautious use of a term of art in its non-term-of-art meaning?

Could be. The word "disadvantage" isn't capitalized. (At least in that quote; I can't check the original ATM.)

[Otaku]

So... what's the official definition of "Disadvantage" in 4e?

My flawed understanding in was (is?) that Quirks are the bottom run of Disadvantages; anything more minor than a Quirk isn't worth recording. They are useful tools for promoting more detailed role-playing (like other Disadvantages) and you receive points for them because ultimately they restrict your freedom as a character. 4e Perks are their inverse; often beneficial but specialized Traits worth only a single character point... and in both cases potentially inflated to integer status for convenient bookkeeping.

So some of this seems to be semantics; Quirks are Disadvantages that aren't particularly Disadvantageous; restricting how many a player can take is to avoid someone taking the time to come up with more than five just-barely-relevant "restrictions" on their character's freedom. If player and GM can agree, no such limit needs to be imposed; once you have more than five "obscure" restrictions, they tend to stop being so obscure or distinctive and instead of having them come up from time to time, X Quirks are always in effect.

Again, I realize my understanding is flawed; please feel free to try and clear things up for me. >_>