[Basic] Advantage of the Week (#57): Fearlessness, Unfazeable

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

What Kromm had to say...

Treating it as merely Immunity to fear and intimidation would mean I'd have to ban it, or they'd all want it. Not that I use influence checks against the PCs much anyway, and when I do it's almost always Diplomacy or Savoir-Faire, but certain players seem convinced that given the chance, I will.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

To me the wording is stronger than it ought to be. I don't want to spend 15+ points for something the GM can just say, "Ah, I think you reacted too much there. Take 15 points off your character sheet."

The player would lose far more than 15 points for poor roleplaying penalties (or equivalently, loss of good RP bonuses). That line is really nothing more than the usual advice not to take psychological traits you don't intend to roleplay, complete with some character development advice.

Same goes for all those Disads with Self-Control Rolls. If you're making a roll every time they come up to dictate your actions, you don't have a developed character with a personality trait. You've got an external game construct that's acting a shallow and obviously random manner. You're also cheating the other players out of their end of the story involving the character you said you were going to play and forcing them to react oddly themselves. You can try to tell a coherent story about a dog going for a walk in Atlantic City by using the Monopoly rules, but it probably wouldn't be a very good one.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Same goes for all those Disads with Self-Control Rolls. If you're making a roll every time they come up to dictate your actions, you don't have a developed character with a personality trait.

I don't know, an alcoholic who visibly trembles or recites his pledge every time he passes a bar but never goes in is a developed character. Meaning, you don't have to occasionally give in to your disadvantage to convincingly roleplay it.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

I don't know, an alcoholic who visibly trembles or recites his pledge every time he passes a bar but never goes in is a developed character. Meaning, you don't have to occasionally give in to your disadvantage to convincingly roleplay it.

In my opinion, that character has a Quirk, Former Alcoholic (GURPS Power-Ups 6: Quirks p. 29), not a Disadvantage worth more than -1 point.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In my opinion, that character has a Quirk, Former Alcoholic (GURPS Power-Ups 6: Quirks p. 29), not a Disadvantage worth more than -1 point.

He's still rolling against Will every time he's in the presence of Alcohol to avoid going on a binge (although I guess there it doesn't strictly match Anaraxes' discussion of Disads with SC rolls). I was talking to Anaraxes' idea that always going for the Will/SC Roll is bad roleplaying.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

He's still rolling against Will every time he's in the presence of Alcohol to avoid going on a binge (although I guess there it doesn't strictly match Anaraxes' discussion of Disads with SC rolls). I was talking to Anaraxes' idea that always going for the Will/SC Roll is bad roleplaying.

If he is still rolling Will to avoid going on a binge and the campaign is ongoing, then he's not going to always manage to walk past the bar and will occasionally be the relapsed alcoholic.

If the player wants a character whose alcoholism is in his background, who has managed to stop drinking by the time the campaign is set and will not ever be drunk when he should be doing something important, then the player wants a Quirk. Only if he wants to roleplay a dysfunctional alcoholic whose disease can and might kill him should he take the full-blown Disadvantage.

[Celti]

One item of note; the “Rule of 15” perk in Power-Ups 2 is renamed in just about every subsequent GURPS publication that it appears in to “Brave” — which somewhat more clearly indicates what it is supposed to be doing and helps avoid confusion with traits affecting the Rule of 16.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

Honestly I've never gotten the "You must roleplay this advantage fully, or the GM can declare that it has been lost." (...) I've just ignored that line.

Me too!

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

My problem is that there are several ways to be unfazable, the typical English butler is only one way.

I second this, as well.

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

What Kromm had to say:
... But you're free to ignore the advice and simply treat it as Immunity to Fear and Intimidation [15], sure.

That's exactly what I've always done, just for the record.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Celti

One item of note; the “Rule of 15” perk in Power-Ups 2 is renamed in just about every subsequent GURPS publication that it appears in to “Brave” — which somewhat more clearly indicates what it is supposed to be doing and helps avoid confusion with traits affecting the Rule of 16.

I don't think that clears up all the confusion - it adds some new confusion by now having three synonyms of being courageous that all have different game-mechanical benefits.

[johndallman]

A character in my Laundry campaign took this, with earned experience. He'd been a forensic surgeon (US: medical examiner) before he had to join the Laundry, and they tend to be pretty hardened.

As GM, I gave it a caveat that there might be things out there so awful that it would only give a bonus, rather than immunity, but this never actually came up.