Merits and Flaws, a few thoughts

The phenomenon of taking flaws and merits for your character, isn't exactly a new one. They come in many names, but gained popularity in the 90's, and are still used in many systems today. They have always split opinions amongst GM's and players alike, and I thought we could take a look at them.

The idea is that the merits and flaws allow you to customize your character to make her stand out and make her unique. In every system I have ever read that contains them, you take a certain amount of flaws worth a number of points, and then spend these points on either merits or on rounding out skills and attributes.

In general this is a great idea, but it can be abused by power hungry players, so you the GM really need to be on his toes.

So how does one abuse merits & flaws?

The first way is to take a flaw that would really derail the campaign if the GM ever decides to invoke it. The classic example is the powerful enemy flaw. In all likelyhood, this enemy is much more powerful than the character, potentially even more powerful than the entire party. An attack by such an enemy will probably mean a total party kill, which would be extremely unfair to the other players, thus prohibiting the GM from using him. Of course, the enemy can focus on just the relevant character, but why allow it, if it means certain, unavoidable death. Suddenly, Sauron steps around the corner, and murders your hobbit. Any questions?

The second method entails taking a flaw that is technically lethal, but won't affect the character until the campaign is over, or the character dies from some other cause. A typical example is to take a disease that kills slowly in a game famous for a high mortality rate, i.e. claiming the character has syphilis in a game set on the eastern front in WW II. Sure, he may have the disease, but it can take up to twenty years to kill, so it shouldn't be considered lethal for the campaign.

In third place, we have the ridicilously unlikely flaw, like having a major phobia of something the character will likely never encounter, like an alien in a historical campaign without supernatural elements, or something that's absolutely redundant, like being terrified of erupting volcanoes. Who isn't terrified of them?

The key to managing the flaws, is to first make sure they actually mean something to the characters, so that they aren't taken just for the points. And secondly to put players who try to abuse the system on the spot. Don't let them get away with this, it ruins the fun for everyone. Remember, flaws are always optional. If no flaw fits a character, he shouldn't have any.

Let's turn to the merits now. These are much less likely to be a problem, since the game designers have already been over them to make sure they aren't overpowered. But do keep in mind that the designers are but falliable humans and may have overlooked something. The only real concern here, is that a particular merit may be too powerful for a given campaign. Like some kind of photographic or eidetic memory in a mystery game. A character that is unable to forget anything ever, could well skew the mystery you have planned.

In closing, I'd like to point out that I have nothing against the merits and flaws. They really do fill a useful niche, but they can be problematic, and they aren't always neccessary. As with all things in the wide wonderful world of RPG's, it's up to you how you want it.