Flaws of Invincibility: They're Boring!

[Thanqol]

In faaaact...


They're boring. Can't move? Have to move? In the presence of someone you care about - i.e. your circle buddies? These are not interesting. They're not dramatic. They're not personal. They're not cool. And they do not hold to the source material.


Manifesto Time!


1) Every Celestial Exalt has their own Flaw of Invincibility.


2) Certain charms with alternate FoI costings, like Bottomless Depths Defense, are unchanged.


3) Flaws of Invincibility have to be designed in such a way that any Celestial Exalt who finds out about it and commits himself to the task of killing you can reasonably accomplish it.


4) It should also come up at rarely when uninformed characters use it. Flaws should come up infrequently - Lethality of Exalted combat, paired with the source material, means that the one time figures out your weakness chances are you die right then.


5) Flaws have to be cool and thematic, and preferably virtue or backstory driven.


6) Not all flaws are suitable for all characters. Something which could be a devastating weakness in one character might be of negligable impact to another.


There are a few categories here; Personal, Item and Class are the big ones. Personal is a flaw in your own nature, a hole in your own defense - physical, mental or spiritual. Item is a type of flaw that can be overcome by the right equipment. Class is a category of people destined to be your bane.


Examples:


Archillies; his heel is his Flaw. Uninformed opponents making called shots at his feet could kill him outright. Personal flaw.


Medusa; her flaw is Mirrors. When she can see her own reflection she cannot activate Perfects. Item flaw.


Kinyon; when she believes someone is her true, legal superior. So she could not fight a rightful king directly - she'd have to prove his claim to the throne is illegitimate to fight him. This is a Class flaw.


Merlin; can only be brought low by someone he's trained. Class flaw.


- This is a tricky one, because it has to be paired with a character who trains lots of people. It makes him vulnerable to betrayal from people he's trusted, or a Night caste infiltrating his school in disguise.


*


Whatchu think?

 

[Tadanori Oyama]

I am 100% in favor of this idea. My last Exalted game one of the characters evaded what was basically a deathblow by a superior opponent who caught him in a bad position and he managed to escape it without a scratch for a grand total of about 13 motes of Essence.


I think rewarding players for learning about their enemies or punishing them for being too proud and not considering their own possible weaknesses is an excellent idea.

 

[cyl]

Let me get this straight... you find that FoIs are boring - on that we agree - so instead you want to implement a totally different system with a thematic weakness which would prevent the character to use a PD.


I do not see exactly how this is an improvement.


FoI put restrictions on your use of a PD (Compassion / Conviction) or on your behavior after having used a PD (Valor / Temperance).


So you have two weaknesses, and two drawbacks.


Now what you are suggesting is using only very specific and thematic weaknesses, which will only result in using PD as, if not more, often and sometimes not being able to use it if the proper condition is found and met.


I... honestly fail to see the logic and the general increase in the drama during combat.


While a few fights will be spicier than others for some characters, if you use this technique in your games, combat in general will be even more boring because you will have facilitated the use of PDs.

 

[Thanqol]

How are the existing PD flaws in any way limitations on use of PDs on every single attack ever? That they come up slightly more often does not make them interesting, logical or fun as written. They already contribute borderline nothing to combat - as usual, take a Conviction flaw and never worry about it ever again.


My design goal here is not a general increase to the drama of combat. People need their perfects, and need to be able to activate them consistently.


See, with Exalted there's assumptions of victory and invincibility. You're Exalts - the vast majority of the time you should be victorious and invincible. Perfect defenses facilitate that. They are absolute measures, no matter how you phrase them. The most concessions they'll make to partial measures is minor, negligable limitations on your movement if you take the wrong one. They are already all-or-nothing effects by their very nature.


So, we need a valid 'nothing', otherwise Perfects are always 'all', as they are in the current system.

 

[Thanqol]

Here's an example of the current system:


Motivation: Kill The Mask Of Winters


Compassion 1, one intimacy:


Intimacy: Become King of all Solars


Conviction Flaw: Cannot activate when the character is acting contrary to the Motivation, surcharge if acting contrary to an Intimacy


So therefore, due to the phrasing, unless Joe Solar has decided to team up with the MoW (immensely difficult to do believably in a story) or has somehow contradicted his urge to become the king (Rare, based on player RP or extreme gameyness from the GM), then he's immortal and unstoppable and the Flaw has absolutely no bearing on the game.


Alternatively;


Temperance flaw. Carry a bow.


Compassion Flaw. Take an intimacy to your sword; you're either holding it, and can perfect, or not and you wouldn't be able to anyway.


Changing the system will not have an impact on the combat system, as you put it 'make it more boring', because the current system may as well not exist. It is an increase of zero drama to some drama. It will not come up every battle, and it shouldn't! But the current system does not come up at all.

 

[cyl]

I think you are confusing abusive interpretations of the system, and the system... but you are right when you say the FoI are boring.


You think "perfect weakness", I'd rather think "cinematic drawback / compulsion".


The idea behind the Valor FoI wasn't that bad but it was the dullest thing that came out.

 

[Kyeudo]

I think we don't need such an exhaustive overhaul, but something more like the Imperfections of the Yozis would be more appropriate. Each Imperfection is thematically appropriate, exploitable, yet the defenses that have such Imperfections are still very useable.

 

[Thanqol]

I think we don't need such an exhaustive overhaul, but something more like the Imperfections of the Yozis would be more appropriate. Each Imperfection is thematically appropriate, exploitable, yet the defenses that have such Imperfections are still very useable.

And we can do that in one of two ways:


- Come up with broad, sweeping flaws suffered and sufferable by all Solars from all walks of life regardless of their time period, attitudes or views on morality.


OR:


- Make it an individual thing.


Consider: The Infernals' imperfections are the individual flaws of their Yozis - which is why they're so awesome.

 

[cyl]

To illustrate my point here's an example of what could be done:


Valor FoI: Excessive Pride


Whenever the character uses a PD, his pride has been wounded and he feels compelled to best the opponent who was good enough for him to use his god-like powers.


For the next (Valor actions) the character will focus on one thing and one thing only: defeat this opponent. Nothing else will matter. The character cannot take guard actions, and cannot move away from his opponent past his attack reach.


It doesn't seem like much like this but... you can forget about protecting others, or accomplishing something if you are in this state.


NOTE: the imperfections are already implemented, the US cannot use his full power if he violates a virtue.


The solar follow the same model... except that the writers were not at their best when they thought about FoI.

 

[Thanqol]

Easy.


Flaw: When fighting an opponent with less than full potential you cannot use PD.


Or you can take Bloodthirsty Sword Dancer Spirit, which is pretty much the wording on your suggestion.


This way, you can have your flaw which guides you away from a certain type of action (Running away; defending), while I can have mine which does something relevent to my character. I know that your suggestion is inappropriate for the vast majority of my characters, and quite probably others - why should it be one of the only four that I can take?

 

[cyl]

Oh that was just a sample. It was not clear in my previous post, but I intended to make several FoI per virtue, giving each exalt a particular flavor (a bit like a secondary virtue curse if you will)

Or you can take Bloodthirsty Sword Dancer Spirit, which is pretty much the wording on your suggestion.

Blech I hate this charm ! :evil:
The point was not to unlock the use of PD, but the other way around: the use of PD locks the character's behavior.


I think it's rather anime style on top of all, don't you think ?

 

[Thanqol]

I think I prefer trying to avoid one choice rather than being forced to make one choice. One has N-1 options, the other has 1 option.


You're right that anime is just as valid an influence for Exalted as Greek myth is. But I reckon that there is much more scope for FoI than just your Virtues, that an absolute weakness is a lot better narratively as it means that researching and getting info on NPCs gives you a clear edge on bringing them down.


You know that super-secret Deathlord weakness thing? Every Exalt should have that. Every Exalt is a final boss.

 

[cyl]

Well if you wanna go this way, which is not a bad idea stricto sensu :mrgreen: , I suggest you think of some limit or scale for those flaws.


They can't be either too narrow (people I have trained) or too generic (Mirrors / My Heel).


Also, it might have something to do with the exaltation itself (the divine essence) and not necessarily the character himself as he is "merely" a vessel for a greater power.

 

[Thanqol]

You're entirely right! However, any given flaw which is perfect for one character could be absolutely gamebreaking for another.


For instance, 'People I Personally Trained' is irrelevant to 95% of character concepts. But my Eclipse, Mostin, who is the tutor/mentor to the entire group and is armed to the teeth with Training charms would find it perfect. It'd mean he has to be incredibly careful with the people he trains to make sure they don't become monsters, which is already a central character element. The Heel/Mirrors were Canon Examples and not things I'd advocate for everyone.

 

[IanPrice]

As I see it, the main problem to be addressed here is the samey-sameness of the flaws. To fix this, they ought to be more like Virtue Flaws for limit break, with multiple options for each virtue. Some along the lines of "in this situation, you can't use your PD," and others along the lines of, "when you use your PD, you are forced to XYZ whether it's advantageous to or not."


Call the existing Valor flaw "Invulnerable Berzerker: the essence of invincibility charges you with battle lust, forcing you to..." etc.


Existing Temperance, "Steadfast Defender: invulnerable essence roots you to your stance, and..." so on.


Compassion "Sympathetic Surge: You draw the strength for invincibility from those dear to you."


Conviction "Pure of Heart: Your unwavering purpose allows you to wield invulnerable essence."


Then make more, such as the valor flaws suggested above: "Deadly Focus" which narrows your world to defeating a single foe (ignoring what others are doing), and "Killing Intent" which can only draw up invincible essence against foes who the character definitely intends to slay.


Sample Compassion: "Now It's Personal," only allows perfects against those the character has an intimacy to (positive or negative). "Don't you die on me!" The character may not use the perfect unless also performing a Defend Other action at the time.


Sample Temperance: "Concerted Defense," the character's next action after using the perfect must be a non-flurried Guard for at least 1 tick. "Purity of Body," applies a +3m surcharge if the character indulged somewhat intemperately in this or the prior scene; may not use the defense if temperance has been suppressed (or failed) to indulge in physical pleasures this scene.


Sample Conviction: "In the Face of Adversity," must be wounded to use the perfect defense. "Never Give Up," after using this perfect defense against someone, the character may not voluntarily quit combat against that foe without suppressing his conviction (don't have to kill them, do have to unequivocally defeat or be defeated to the point of incapacitation by them).

 

[Thanqol]

If you take "Now It's Personal" instead of "Never Give Up" or "Purity of Body" then you're a moron. See, this comes back to the key problem with PDs: There are some that are outright better than others - except in very specific games and character's situations.


One character, who is a perfect monk who never ever behaves Intemperately and has Temperance 5 now has no flaw whatsoever with Purity of Body. However, in the case of an ex-addict Solar who still can't truly say no, it's perfect - if his enemies find out about the weakness, they can mail him a box of drugs the night before the battle and screw him over.


The point is that these things are, and should be, intensely personal things rather than blanket choices riffing off a virtue, which is an inherent limiter on what is already a difficult and individual choice.

 

[IanPrice]

You can form an intimacy to anybody you want within a day, thus ensuring you'll always have a perfect against that guy you hate. You are now the equal of the perfect monk, because both of you could be swayed from your paths by a social-fu master. Also, remember that you can have up to two different flaws of invulnerability among your different defenses.


Incidentally, besides the fact that Mr. Compassion 1, "Wants to become king," Motivation: Kill MoW is a one-dimensional character, I personally would find it dead easy to dump him in situations where he'd have to support another solar's leadership (oops, +3m surcharge this scene) or spare the Mask of Winters' life (perfect denied lol). I'd have no compunctions about putting such a one-dimensional combat monster character in a situation where they'd have to choose between fighting vastly superior forces alone or following someone else as leader, for example. Or a situation where if the Mask dies, the returned Empress wins, game over Creation.


The powers of the GM are limited only by his imagination, and the players' sense of verisimilitude. Therefore, what the invulnerability flaws need are more variety to take out the boring, and more fluff to spur the imagination. Note that I didn't disagree with you that flaws should be personalized, I just said there ought to be a lot more examples. Virtue Flaws for Limit Break have the explicit option in the book to come up with unique ones, and by comparing invulnerability flaws to virtue flaws, I meant to include that option in what I was envisioning. So yes, I agree - create or choose something which fits for the character. At the GM's option, that might have to mean a flaw which is likely to come up, or it might not. I'm fine with invulnerability flaws the player feels won't come up most of the time, as long as they buy into the fact that I will occasionally engineer situations to make those flaws felt.

 

[cyl]

You're entirely right! However, any given flaw which is perfect for one character could be absolutely gamebreaking for another.
For instance, 'People I Personally Trained' is irrelevant to 95% of character concepts. But my Eclipse, Mostin, who is the tutor/mentor to the entire group and is armed to the teeth with Training charms would find it perfect. It'd mean he has to be incredibly careful with the people he trains to make sure they don't become monsters, which is already a central character element. The Heel/Mirrors were Canon Examples and not things I'd advocate for everyone.

Yep but IMHO the "People I have personally trained" is too generic, because there are many people you have trained... it would also depends on the threat level of said people. If they're all extras who cares ?!


The only real danger is if by some unbelievably lucky / malicious call a deathlord / yozi would make one of them his lapdog.


Also, the character himself might not percieve the flaw as an opening in his guard - therefore having to be " incredibly careful with the people he trains to make sure they don't become monsters" - but instead as a side of his personality.


Something like "My heart is breaking when people I have trained betray me, and so I cannot resolve myself to use my full power against them".

 

[Thanqol]

You can form an intimacy to anybody you want within a day, thus ensuring you'll always have a perfect against that guy you hate. You are now the equal of the perfect monk, because both of you could be swayed from your paths by a social-fu master. Also, remember that you can have up to two different flaws of invulnerability among your different defenses.

Can you not see how finding loopholes around your FoI is boring which is the entire purpose of this thread?

Incidentally, besides the fact that Mr. Compassion 1, "Wants to become king," Motivation: Kill MoW is a one-dimensional character, I personally would find it dead easy to dump him in situations where he'd have to support another solar's leadership (oops, +3m surcharge this scene) or spare the Mask of Winters' life (perfect denied lol). I'd have no compunctions about putting such a one-dimensional combat monster character in a situation where they'd have to choose between fighting vastly superior forces alone or following someone else as leader, for example. Or a situation where if the Mask dies, the returned Empress wins, game over Creation.

Yes, but then the question isn't "Do I kill the Mask of Winters, the horrible menace who I've spent my life hunting, or spare him for the greater good?". It's "Do I spare the MoW and in so doing lose my PD and get chumped in the next fight?"


Also, such situations are either insanely contrived or can only ever come up once or twice, tops - and might not even have any bearing on combat, as the Solar might make the choice in a non-combat situation.

The powers of the GM are limited only by his imagination, and the players' sense of verisimilitude. Therefore, what the invulnerability flaws need are more variety to take out the boring, and more fluff to spur the imagination. Note that I didn't disagree with you that flaws should be personalized, I just said there ought to be a lot more examples. Virtue Flaws for Limit Break have the explicit option in the book to come up with unique ones, and by comparing invulnerability flaws to virtue flaws, I meant to include that option in what I was envisioning. So yes, I agree - create or choose something which fits for the character. At the GM's option, that might have to mean a flaw which is likely to come up, or it might not. I'm fine with invulnerability flaws the player feels won't come up most of the time, as long as they buy into the fact that I will occasionally engineer situations to make those flaws felt.

Why should the GM limit himself to HIS imagination? The players are smart people. Why not put their brains to work and get them in on the action? Why should the GM spend a long time trying to reason out a convluted scheme where a bizzare twist of virtues and motivations briefly come together in order to briefly negate a PC's invincibility - maybe? Why should the GM not ask instead, 'what do you think is a poetic weakness for your legendary hero?'


We seem to agree on most points except for the idea that I don't think it should necessarily be based on Virtues. They can be, but I don't think it should be always.

 

[IanPrice]

For Solars, it ought to link to Virtues. Their patron is about two things: virtues, and perfection. This is about flaws in perfection, so if it's not about Virtues, it isn't much about virtues.


For other exalts, maybe less so, but Sids and Lunars are still pretty virtue-based. Lunars because they reflect the Solars so much, Sids because each maiden is pretty closely tied to a virtue (Venus - compassion, Mars - valor, Jupiter - Temperance, Saturn - Conviction). Though, on that note, Sidereal perfects sometimes come with their own unique flaws, like Duck Fate's roll. Abyssals - corrupted solars. Infernals shouldn't be PCs in my opinion, but regardless, they already have their own flaws you say you like better. Dragon Bloods already have their own, unique to each charm. Alchemicals have a different set from the usual four, though still based on virtues, since they're supposed to be champions of what's right for the populat.


Finally, no, I cannot see what you're talking about with loopholes, one-time scenarios, or the like. It all comes down to what a man can do, and what he can't. The flaw might provide a situation in which the perfect can't be used, in which case my ideal balance throughout an actual game would be for it to be useful most of the time, except when the storyteller specifically wants it to be useless or the player invites it on himself. The flaw might force the player to act a certain way, in which case it's got to be a combat tactic which is useful at times but crippling at other times - so pretty much any combat tactic, including the standard "move towards enemy" or "stand still" ones. The only inherent boredom I could see in them was a lack of description for why you wouldn't be able to use the charm, or why it would force you to act a certain way - plus a certain lack of variety of examples to base any additional ones to be conceived upon.


As for why I don't ask players to shoot their characters in the foot? Conflict of interests. It creates cognitive dissonance and hurts the enjoyment of playing their characters. I want to let my players relax and trust me to challenge them, not force them to come up with the challenges. So if they want to come up with the way their invulnerability is exploited that's fine, but normally? That's my job as GM. It's not a "might, maybe, once" thing. It doesn't take me a long time. It's "I'm the GM, and I know your motivation and your intimacies, and so here's the reason you won't be able to use your perfect during this battle if you do this."

 

[Thanqol]

As for why I don't ask players to shoot their characters in the foot? Conflict of interests. It creates cognitive dissonance and hurts the enjoyment of playing their characters. I want to let my players relax and trust me to challenge them, not force them to come up with the challenges. So if they want to come up with the way their invulnerability is exploited that's fine, but normally? That's my job as GM. It's not a "might, maybe, once" thing. It doesn't take me a long time. It's "I'm the GM, and I know your motivation and your intimacies, and so here's the reason you won't be able to use your perfect during this battle if you do this."

Okay, here's the crux. I cannot support this ideal of players sitting back and letting the GM do everything. It's a very antagonistic, dictatorial model - even if they trust you and it's done right! - which is the opposite of this whole collaberative gaming malarkey I'm into right now.


Other points; Yes, it's possible to justify a virtue based thematic for the FoI, but there's different, cooler source material we can draw from without initially binding ourselves in a corner. Yes, it's cool to have restrictions on your combat tactics rather than an all-or-nothing PD - but again, that shouldn't be your only option, and also an all-or-nothing PD properly phrased can replicate the exact effects of your limiter.

 

[wordman]

1) Every Celestial Exalt has their own Flaw of Invincibility.
2) Certain charms with alternate FoI costings, like Bottomless Depths Defense, are unchanged.


3) Flaws of Invincibility have to be designed in such a way that any Celestial Exalt who finds out about it and commits himself to the task of killing you can reasonably accomplish it.


4) It should also come up at rarely when uninformed characters use it. Flaws should come up infrequently - Lethality of Exalted combat, paired with the source material, means that the one time figures out your weakness chances are you die right then.


5) Flaws have to be cool and thematic, and preferably virtue or backstory driven.


6) Not all flaws are suitable for all characters. Something which could be a devastating weakness in one character might be of negligable impact to another.

7) The flaw should be mechanicaly exploitable through social combat, either as some kind of consequence of a social victory, or through some kind of "discovery".

 

[Thanqol]

7) The flaw should be mechanicaly exploitable through social combat, either as some kind of consequence of a social victory, or through some kind of "discovery".

I like it!

 

[IanPrice]

Okay, here's the crux. I cannot support this ideal of players sitting back and letting the GM do everything. It's a very antagonistic, dictatorial model - even if they trust you and it's done right! - which is the opposite of this whole collaberative gaming malarkey I'm into right now.

I'm comfortable with shared storytelling, but there's a reason it's not the norm for my group - and it's the same reason some of us are better GMs than others. What you see as antagonistic, I see as division of labor. They handle describing their characters and actions and I handle the world and the story that happens around the protagonists. They contribute backstory and supporting cast as well at times, but even those who are good at GMing would rather take a more relaxed role as players. Let's face it, between the focus required to prepare world and character information for all kinds of possible paths for a game session, and the mental agility to switch between NPCs and their motivations and actions, GMing is hard to do right. Yes, it gets easier when the work is shared out, which I'm all for doing when possible.


Dictatorial is not bad. Courts of law are generally dictatorial. The judge has absolute authority to interpret the law, especially in civil cases where there's no jury so the judge is also deciding on the facts in evidence. This system works fairly well because of the law as a basis, and the presupposition of the judges as honorable - thus the term of address, "your honor." Dictatorial is good for getting questions resolved efficiently and rulings made. It's an information flow/decision gate issue. In the case of a roleplaying game, the rules of the game and the shared sense of verisimilitude form the "law." The GM's brotherhood with his players and credibility in general form the presupposed honor of the "judge." Thus, the role of the GM as referee and challenge provider. It's traditional, and it's worked for years for good reason. It has its flaws (GMs who let the feeling of "power" go to their heads), but so does the alternative (players who manipulate the story to their own ends, decisions taking forever to make when players with equal "decision power" over the story and rules disagree).

 

[Thanqol]

My key issue is you conveying the idea that there is in any way a "conflict of interest" in a player designing a weakness for his character. If that is the case, and a player has to do everything in his power to make his character survivable to the extent that he cannot come up with flaws that would add to the narrative but potentially make him less survivable in battle, then I don't know what to say. To me, that's the BadWrongFun.


Anyway, this is all irrelevant and off topic. Let's take it outside if you want to continue the debate.


On topic: Don't look at it entirely from the angle of the PC's weaknesses; look at it's story component. If each Celestial Exalt NPC has a secret weakness that can be found and exploited, then stealth, cunning, research, trickery and knowledge all become powerful weapons. It also increases the value of each Exalted NPC - which is a great thing, because every Celestial Exalt is a final boss. Defeating one should be a matter of learning your enemy to the point where rivalry borders romance, not just whaling on them until they're out of motes or putting them in a combat situation where their only usable tactic is sub-optimal.