Benefits of Flaws

[Arnold Rimmer]

Does taking a flaw grant you an additional edge? Or are players just expected to take them to round out their characters?

I would assume that players are granted an edge for every flaw that they take, but I don't think this is mentioned in the core book.

[Erias]

When you create a character you may (or may not) choose one Edge from your personal background. Later on you have to choose one edge from your professional background. If you take both (thus endind up with two edges) then you have to pick up one flaw, if you selected only one edge then you start with no flaw.

Naturally afterwards, characters may "gain" flaws over the course of the series. They don't earn picks, they just possibly get flaws as an episode side effect.

[Tobian]

I'm not sure if it's strictly in the rules but I generally allow players up to a maximum of 3 flaws to gain corresponding edges. In the rules you can take a flaw for an edge, and most starting packages come with a bonus edge - this however is a free edge. Some backgrounds come with a flaw, which correspond to higher abilities factored into it (Such as genetic resequencing, which gives you the flaw of dark secret automatically etc).

Technically using the 'build your own background' system, you could build a package which gave your player dozens of flaws, with a corresponsing huge number of compensatory edges, but such a character would be quite crippled - if a handy plot device for the GM!

Beyond character creation characters an gain new flaws, but you don't get to buy edges using that rule at that stage - you just got them because you screwed up !

[Doug Burke]

During character creation (i.e. before applying any advancements), you gain an additional Edge for each Flaw you take. You are limited to two flaws during the creation process, though (which would allow up to a total of three non-species Edges).

[Kronok]

COOL!!!

Thanks Doug.

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by Kronok
Thanks Doug.

Any time, Kronok.

[Arnold Rimmer]

Heh. I should read more carefully.
As for the number of flaws characters take, I just let my players take as many as they want, so long as it's playable.

[Erias]

Personally I prefer limiting the number of flaws (at the character's creation it's a matter of rules but also thereafter), indeed I rather have characters with few flaws we remember and play up than characters with a bunch of flaws we regularly forget about.

Actually I think the same about advantages and I must be careful about edges and professional abilities since they tend to swell as PCs gain picks

[Tobian]

I do agree about setting a limit to the number of flaws..

However i have always been a fan of the old adage, "Give them enough rope to hang themselves with" - a player with more than a couple of flaws is going to be reall hampered because all of them in combination will seriously cripple a character!

[Sho-sa Kurita]

To expand on what Doug said, you can take one flaw during the Personal Development stage, and then take a second (or upgrade the first) during the Professional Devolopment stage. The stage during which you choose your flaw also determines the stage during which you pick your edge (from the Package).

Contrary to what Erias said, you don't have to pick your one 'standard' edge from the Professional package. It can come from the Personal or Professional package.

It's all explained on p.86 under Acquiring Edges and Acquiring Flaws.

[Sho-sa Kurita]

Originally posted by Erias
Personally I prefer limiting the number of flaws (at the character's creation it's a matter of rules but also thereafter), indeed I rather have characters with few flaws we remember and play up than characters with a bunch of flaws we regularly forget about.

Agreed. Also, if playing non-Starfleet, it's OK to have multplie 'game' flaws, but personnel in Federation service shouldn't have many -- unless of course they're crazy/powermad admirals or diplomats

I would think the same of most Romulan service personnel as well. Klingons and Cardassians are another matter of course.

[C5]

Personnally, I let the players choose as many flaws as they want, provided it doesn't become unrealistic and is backuped by a good backstory. For instance, I won't allow a Starfleet officer to take a bunch of physical flaws like Bad Metabolism or Bad Aim (otherwise you'd wonder what the doctor doing the checking was thinking), but for instance I can let a player (even a SF one) bundle flaws like Rival, Dark Secret and one or two physical flaws, provided he can come up with a good backstory with it (and is ready to see his character suffer...).
Then again, I use an house rule which makes a flaw equal to two picks (not specifically an edge).

[Tobian]

While I do see your point about flaws in Starfleet officers, to a limited degree this is not true.

For example most Starfleet officers come accross as superior arogant - and the younger command officers are rather to quick with the phaser! then on the flip side you have Reginald Barklay - he has a phobia about just about everything, an adiction to holosimulations and is completelly socially inept - on the flip side he is an extremelly competent engineer - that would be a case where someone would have to spend more than those 2 picks to get such a similar character - a complete nervous wrech but who was a briliant specialist. You also have someone like Rom. He's clumsy, he has a dependant, and has almost no backbone or ferengi commerce sense - but he was also excelent at doing what he wanted - and got to be a Starfleet engineer! I think there are loads of examples of characters that would fall outside this mark. of course they don't neccissarily start out like that, but barklay at least came like that fully formed!

[Sho-sa Kurita]

To pick a nit, Rom was a Bajoran technician, not Starfleet, but we like him anyway. And of course, Reg was an anomaly, but your general point is well taken, and with merit. Also, I was speaking purely of beginning (no advancements) PCs. Reg may have had Addiction 1 fresh out of the academy (which would fit my model), but then had it progress to Add 2 or Add 3 as life progressed (which fits your model)

I was really stating a generalization based on what we know Starfleet should be like, not necessarily what was portrayed onscreen. To pull out an old example of writing that didn't support the idea of Starfleet excellence, how 'bout Worf pointing his phaser at the viewscreen on the bridge. And supposedly SF personnel have psych exams as well as medical, so Reg's problems should have been caught a long time ago. Way to go doctors! Elements were frequently introduced in the shows for dramatic purposes that didn't really fit what we were told about Starfleet (which annoyed the heck out of me), so it really comes down to preference -- Starfleet is either excellent or just good at talking themselves up -- and you allow flaws accordingly.

[Tobian]

I can't remember exactly what Rom was, but he did work for O'Brien if not for starfleet, much as ODO did.

I know where you are coming from with regards to the 'perfection' model of officers, but don't forget notall of them are as 'perfect' as we saw on Enterprise, remember they are the cream of the crop. Reg was transfered off his ship because he got on thenerves of his old captain. I know all officers are trained to handle any situation, that's why their officers rather than simply 'crew' but then if Barklay was a brilliant enough engineer why should they turn him down because he has personality flaws. While they are psychologically screened before the academy, but that doesn't mean they didn't turn out in different ways than their testers predicted, or that they were just very good at hiding probllems. Don't forget extremelly bright people are better at hiding things too!