Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   GURPS (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?) (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=136435)

weevis 07-28-2015 07:33 PM

Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
As the GM, I boasted to a new player that GURPS rules cover *everything*. She looked through the Basic Set and asked me where she could find the following disadvantage: her character would have a weakness for older men. By this she said she means "a powerful tendency to look up to them, whether they deserve it or not."

Sweating a little, I've looked through the rules and at first I thought I wanted to add a modifier to Gullibility to restrict it to a specific group (older men). But wait--Gullibility specifically states it is about "stories" and lying, not influence generally. "Looking up to" someone sounds like general influence. So maybe it is not in the Basic Set.

Then I looked to Quirks and I found "Easily Influenced." But these -/+1 modifiers seem very weak for a "powerful tendency." They also depend on the "Influencing the PCs" rule (p. B359), which I don't think I need in this case. I expect the player will do a good job roleplaying it without specific influence skill roll modifiers. (Of course I could always use those rules or roll against Will to resist, or something it if became necessary.)

Next I thought maybe the "Preferred Looks" quirk would do it. The definition is right on target, but it still has the problems of "Easily Influenced" (too weak, depends on the "Influencing the PCs" dynamics). But I was thinking that perhaps I could modify it upward with a modifier to make it more powerful.

Finally, I looked through Social Engineering and in fact it recommends adapting the Resistant advantage to apply to resisting social influence (p. 77). Since I think the Resistant advantage is the opposite of the Vulnerability disadvantage this tactic should work to modify Vulnerability as well. So with this approach she could take the Vulnerability disadvantage but in social terms, then add a modifier to to restrict it to a specific group (older men).

That last option currently seems like the best bet. I'm not sure how to price this though.

Or... maybe there is another way I am not thinking of. Everyone on here has such great ideas I thought I would see if anyone had other thoughts about it! I'd appreciate any pointers.

David Johnston2 07-28-2015 07:44 PM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
Delusion: Older men are wise and benevolent.

Randyman 07-28-2015 08:56 PM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2 (Post 1922852)
Delusion: Older men are wise and benevolent.

Given that (IIRC) Delusions do not have to be falsehoods, a Delusion like this that is sometimes true and sometimes not could definitely work.

weevis 07-28-2015 09:43 PM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2 (Post 1922852)
Delusion: Older men are wise and benevolent.

Wow, that is so much simpler than what I was trying to do. Thank you so much.

Not 07-28-2015 09:57 PM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
First, you shouldn't have bragged. Second, this is pretty clearly quirk: likes older men.

weevis 07-28-2015 10:23 PM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not (Post 1922890)
First, you shouldn't have bragged.

Ha ha. Yes.

Quote:

Second, this is pretty clearly quirk: likes older men.
Maybe I misunderstood her, but I don't think so. If a player tells me they want a powerful weakness, I'm happy to oblige. I like the -5 for it. In fact, I have a feeling that during the next adventure a charismatic older man is going to insist that her character enter a life of crime.

Phantasm 07-28-2015 11:51 PM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by weevis (Post 1922897)
Maybe I misunderstood her, but I don't think so. If a player tells me they want a powerful weakness, I'm happy to oblige. I like the -5 for it. In fact, I have a feeling that during the next adventure a charismatic older man is going to insist that her character enter a life of crime.

Best to do it in a way that she's not told it's a life of crime. :)

Flyndaran 07-29-2015 01:41 AM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2 (Post 1922852)
Delusion: Older men are wise and benevolent.

Delusion is merely a negative social reaction: people think you're "crazy".
Women that like older men aren't crazy whether you think they're icky for having such preferences or not.

Flyndaran 07-29-2015 01:44 AM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
Gullible: only toward older men.
Preference alone is meaningless and liking older men is downright beneficial in most human societies throughout time.
Unless it rises to Lecherousness, of course.

weevis 07-29-2015 06:01 AM

Re: Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1922944)
Delusion is merely a negative social reaction: people think you're "crazy".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1922945)
liking older men is downright beneficial in most human societies throughout time.

Well put. Now that you mention it the negative social reaction for this particular delusion doesn't make any sense.

I don't mean to nitpick but I do think a delusion is more than just "merely" a social reaction against you. You "must roleplay your belief at all times." In this way, with this delusion, the player would be compelled to behave differently. That part would work well.

Nonetheless, I don't like the fact that the negative reaction modifier is somewhat nonsensical. Maybe gullibility is the way to go. I shied away from it because of the description's emphasis on lies and "ridiculous stories," which seems like just one part of what this player was getting at.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.