[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Restricted Diet and Slow Eater

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'll do something that seems to be always met with controversy on this forum. I'll point out to the fact that a mere Vow of Vegetarianism (i.e. will not eat animals willingly but can do it if forced by circumstances with the usual penalties) is [-5], so outright inability to gain sustenance from animals seems like a worse Disadvantage than that, warranting the [-10] level.

I would also argue that a diet of meat is likely as tricky to provide as one of only vegetarian food, since growing meat essentially requires also growing plants/fungi as a prior trophic stage, or relies on chasing animals that run away, or other complications. Meat is also an infamously expensive and/or seasonal and/or regional source of nutrients for people. Due to all this I prefer to interpret 'fresh meat' as 'not rotten' rather than a barely-dead carcass.

Technically, according to the rules, all that the pricing of that Vow tells us is that obligate carnivorism can't be worth less than [-5]. Still, I definitely agree with this interpretation, and I've used it multiple times to represent fantasy races and aliens.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

From everything I've read on felines and their dietary needs & restrictions, they can't derive much sustenance from the (safe) plants they do eat and grasses are mostly used to help clean their stomach and intestines. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I did spend some time reading up on the subject when I got my current cat.

I'd still say that any feline should have at least the lowest level of Restricted Diet. Possibly with the Substitution Limitation, and I could certainly see some special breeds where the Substitution Limitation would be too lenient.

From experience with my mother's dogs, Restricted Diet would also be apropriate for various forms of food allergy.

We can't derive a lot of nutrition from a purely raw food diet. It can technically be done of course, but so can all sorts of tricky diets. But that complexity is never considered.

Most cat foods have quite a bit of plant filler, and while not optimal at all, is nutritionally safe for Gurps time frames.

The problem is that Substitution as written causes a drop in Ht and medical intervention on a failed Ht roll which will happen frequenly.
Cats won't require medical help if they eat a safe plant. Most won't even have an upset stomach. It's just not healthy to "eat too much".

Allergies certainly can cause some restricted diets especially in certain societies. We all know how with wheat being in damn near everything, an allergy or intolerance to it severely restricts diet in western nations.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by johndallman

I think they're physical quirks, although a case could be made for features.

The key thing is not what diet you are limited to, but how hard it is to get. If whatever you are allowed to eat in the setting is no more costly or hard to get than it would be to find food that would feed a human, it's a feature. If you live in a human civilization, that means if you can eat any subset of stuff humans do, you probably have a feature. If you are restricted to foods that are seasonal or exceptionally expensive you might qualify for more, but at least in the modern world even "pure carnivore" is on the marginal end for more expensive. Sure it costs more than the cheapest possible human diet, but probably not more than an average one if you are willing to eat the unpopular stuff or from the pet food aisle.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by malloyd

The key thing is not what diet you are limited to, but how hard it is to get. If whatever you are allowed to eat in the setting is no more costly or hard to get than it would be to find food that would feed a human, it's a feature. If you live in a human civilization, that means if you can eat any subset of stuff humans do, you probably have a feature. If you are restricted to foods that are seasonal or exceptionally expensive you might qualify for more, but at least in the modern world even "pure carnivore" is on the marginal end for more expensive. Sure it costs more than the cheapest possible human diet, but probably not more than an average one if you are willing to eat the unpopular stuff or from the pet food aisle.

That reads like an argument for Vow (Vegetarian) being a 0-point feature in modern society, while only being worth any points as a social disadvantage in societies where eating meat is expected. It could potentially be an OPH if the character is obnoxious about not eating meat.

[ericthered]

I like restricted diet, because I like playing around with non-human physiology.

I'm a touch curious how restricted diet interacts with "picky eaters". There is a lot of food that's nutritious and historically common that most westerns will struggle to eat. That's probably something other than restricted diet though.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Most cat foods have quite a bit of plant filler, and while not optimal at all, is nutritionally safe for Gurps time frames.

On the other hand, you can't just willy-nilly feed the cats those fillers: you've got to doctor the food up to achieve the right effect. Whereas I've seen people give dogs plain bowls of rice.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by malloyd

The key thing is not what diet you are limited to, but how hard it is to get. If whatever you are allowed to eat in the setting is no more costly or hard to get than it would be to find food that would feed a human, it's a feature. If you live in a human civilization, that means if you can eat any subset of stuff humans do, you probably have a feature. If you are restricted to foods that are seasonal or exceptionally expensive you might qualify for more, but at least in the modern world even "pure carnivore" is on the marginal end for more expensive. Sure it costs more than the cheapest possible human diet, but probably not more than an average one if you are willing to eat the unpopular stuff or from the pet food aisle.

I'm not sure that's right. A lot of GURPS traits don't vary that way. Consider Magery 0, for example, which costs 5 points even if you're in a No-Mana setting.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I like restricted diet, because I like playing around with non-human physiology.

I'm a touch curious how restricted diet interacts with "picky eaters". There is a lot of food that's nutritious and historically common that most westerns will struggle to eat. That's probably something other than restricted diet though.



On the other hand, you can't just willy-nilly feed the cats those fillers: you've got to doctor the food up to achieve the right effect. Whereas I've seen people give dogs plain bowls of rice.

I assume a lot of that doctoring is about making it appealing to most cats or healthy-ish long term. "Taste" is probably just as difficult if not more so to manage than nutritional content.

I've had cats that loved certain plants though of course I tried to keep them from such foods. On the flip side, my present two cats have hyper sensitive stomachs and can't handle many meats.

There are certainly foods most of us would have to be literally starving to eat. My mom would probably eat dirt before a banana. But we still say bananas are human food.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not sure that's right. A lot of GURPS traits don't vary that way. Consider Magery 0, for example, which costs 5 points even if you're in a No-Mana setting.

I would imagine that's, because merely by allowing a player to pick Magery, it will be useful some time in the game.
Similar goes for a disadvantage. It should cause as much hassle as other disadvantages of similar price.

So for me, it matters how much hassle obligate carnivory/herbivory/etc. really causes.

I vaguely remember a thread where my extremely strict diabetic diet was considered to only be worth around -2 points. Even though it causes a bit of real world hassle, familial "static", and increased food bills. But all of that combines into not that much "game effect" if I were a PC.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

That reads like an argument for Vow (Vegetarian) being a 0-point feature in modern society, while only being worth any points as a social disadvantage in societies where eating meat is expected. It could potentially be an OPH if the character is obnoxious about not eating meat.

In general that Vow should be at most a Quirk. If the campaign features reference societies where not eating meat cause significant problems, then yeah, it should cost more.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not sure that's right. A lot of GURPS traits don't vary that way. Consider Magery 0, for example, which costs 5 points even if you're in a No-Mana setting.

Really? So we're ignoring all the discussions in the last decade plus about how trait costs need to be altered to fit the campaign world?

[Anders]

I think vegetarianism is canonically a minor Vow. I have no compulsion against inventing a -5-point version of Restricted Diet for herbivores.