Disads: the Second Best CP Deal in GURPS

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

Curious on its own does make you investigate situations you aren't familiar with, but still allows you to take precautions before doing so. When combined with Impulsive you're going to act on that curiosity before thinking things through, unless it there are clear indications you can't handle things on your own. And that's where Overconfidence comes in to broaden the scope of what you think you can handle to a point where it's no longer realistic.

Yep.

It's either a fatal combination or it's what makes the PCs continue to have adventures well beyond what any realistic person would ever encounter in a lifetime. Sometimes both.

It's important to keep in mind that what counts as suicidal stupidity for a real person can be pretty par for the course for adventurers. Reasonable people contact the authorities or pass things up the chain of command instead of confronting one dire threat to the kingdom/nation/world after another, all by themselves and without adequate support.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

And again, this is not about a single disadvantage making a character commit suicide and/or acts of stupidity, it's about the interplay between disadvantages synergizing in a way that negatively impacts the character's chance of survival.

Again, I'd like to point out... if you're making an interplay between -25 points worth of Disads more immediately deadly to a Character than a -100 death sentence (Terminally Ill)... might I be so bold as to suggest that something is being done wrong?

Originally Posted by Icelander

... or it's what makes the PCs continue to have adventures well beyond what any realistic person would ever encounter in a lifetime.

This I agree with whole heartedly. I'd love to see Curious, Impulsive, and OVerconfident on a PC in one of my games. That would be the Character that wants to get things done, rather than sit around planning and carefulling everything to death. There's rather a bit too much of that already inherent in the combat mechanics.


Granted I prefer to run Action!, not 'gritty realism simulator' so I might not align well* with all GURPS GMs.

And lastly, as a GM I keep my PCs Disads in mind when running. If I were running a modern game and had Mr Triple Threat (Curious, Impulsive, Overconfident) on a bus where a sketchy looking person left a backpack, would I want him alerting the bus driver and calling the police? Or do I want him opening that bag? The later naturally! So I do I make it a bomb that goes off the moment the bag is opened? Of course not, I want that bag opened!

So why would I ever put a bottle of hemlock labeled "Drink Me, I Taste Great!" before the PC? I wouldn't, that would be breaking the Player/GM compact.



* For instance I prefer to use disads as a carrot rather than a stick. For someone with Curious, the disad is what I poke when they are refusing to chase the unknown, not something I hit them with by making the unknown repeatedly horrible and deadly. For Impulsive, they're the ones keeping the game from becoming boardroom and spreadsheets, so do I make hying off without intricate plans infinitely deadly? No. Etc.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

And again, this is not about a single disadvantage making a character commit suicide and/or acts of stupidity, it's about the interplay between disadvantages synergizing in a way that negatively impacts the character's chance of survival.

In this particular case, I was responding to a post by Sunrunners_Fire that appeared to be about Curious in isolation. My point was simply that there is plenty of evidence in the text to support a more generous reading of Curious and many other disadvantages. I'm not suggesting that harsher readings are Bad Wrong Fun. (I steer clear of that.) Nor am I suggesting that others are automatically invoking "house rules" if they read things differently. I bristle, however, when the way I have seen most people playing GURPS (including examples and posts from GURPS authors and editors) is somehow considered not RAW.

As for the combination of the three, I can see where you are coming from. This, to me, depends on the genre of the game, style of the table, and compact between the GM and players. At my table, a basic agreement is that if I approve your disadvantages, I won't go out of my way to kill your character for good roleplaying. If there's a tough combination, we'll discuss how the player could stay true to the character and still manage to survive. I expect the players to do some of the work here. There are always choices about how to play out your Impulsiveness. If you always impulsively choose the most deadly option, then life may be short. In the Puddin' example, if she were Impulsive, she could just try to open the box. But she could also impulsively poke it with her dagger or pick it up and shake it or toss it down to an ally saying, "Seamus, think fast! Check it for magical traps!" This last course would work even if she were Overconfident; she's just confident in her ability to throw it.

Finally, as I've mentioned before, it's always possible that some combo slips through my filter at character creation, or, more likely, that a player chooses to play their disads in a way that breaks willing suspension of disbelief. At that point, I would talk to the player(s) about it, allow them to either change their play style or adjust the character, and/or enforce full consequences of their actions according to the rules of the genre and setting.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Again, I'd like to point out... if you're making an interplay between -25 points worth of Disads more immediately deadly to a Character than a -100 death sentence (Terminally Ill)... might I be so bold as to suggest that something is being done wrong?

Terminally Ill means the character is going to die within the timeframe given and nothing (beyond GM fiat) can be done to prevent that. With Curious, Impulsive and Overconfidence combined depending on circumstances there is a chance that the character will live, but it is almost certain that the character is going to get into a lot of trouble really fast.

In some campaigns "a lot of trouble" will often result in either death or lengthy imprisonment, in others it may merely get them fired or cause them to suffer various social penalities. If they're lucky they may gain some sort of benefit, but the Overconfidence part is sooner or later going to get them in deeper trouble than they can handle on their own (unless both GM and player ignores what the disadvantage does, in that case: Free Points).

But it depends on the type of campaign and the GM's style.

If the GM fudges dice in the favour of players taking risks/in danger of dying and/or the campaign leans towards cinematic, this type of character can be fairly powerful because their disadvantages lead them towards taking risks. In that scenario the disadvantages hinder the character a lot less than their points indicate (which is essentially Free Points).

If the GM lets the dice fall as they may and/or the campaign is leaning towards realistic, this type of character can be at high risk of dying quickly. They may be lucky with the dice (or the party assisting their endeavours) and live long and interesting lives, but in this scenario they always run the risk of a roll (or series of rolls) ending their career prematurely.

For the Terminally Ill (at the -100 points level) character, they have 1 month of ingame time and once that is up they're gone. If the GM decides they get more time, the character has to pay those 100 points back and/or pile on new disadvantages. The character can't get a string of lucky rolls that keeps them alive, an active GM decision (or forgetfulness, which equals Free Points) is the only thing that can do it.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Dalin

But she could also impulsively poke it with her dagger or pick it up and shake it or toss it down to an ally saying, "Seamus, think fast! Check it for magical traps!" This last course would work even if she were Overconfident; she's just confident in her ability to throw it.

From Overconfidence in the paragraph about when to roll for self-control:

Caution is not an option.

Unless the character has some sort of expectations that the chest is trapped via magical means (such as from the trove of a mage/magical being), I'd say that it would require a roll for the character to toss the chest to another player first. And if that roll fails I'd tell the player they don't think there are any traps.

Another player could certainly intervene and ask to look for traps, but I'd at best give a bonus to the self-control in that situation unless there have been prior experiences with trapped chests in the area.

[Rupert]

It seems to me that this is turning Overconfidence into a belief that the universe is benign until proven otherwise.

Overconfidence means deciding that in the absence of an expert, you can disarm that bomb. Or that you can stay and grab that last piece of loot because you can totally outrun or soak the blast from the bomb that's counting down. It's only a 5-point disad at its base level, so it shouldn't be more of an issue that a 5-point Sense of Duty (party members), or Chummy, or Oblivious.

Likewise, Curious shouldn't get you blown up for poking things best left unpoked any more often than Incurious should get you blown up for not prodding that which should be prodded.

Impulsive, on its own, doesn't remove the ability to be cautious, either. It just means that you decide how something should be done, and then set about it. Now. Adding in Overconfidence is when things start getting messy, because that means inadequate safety measures and acting before others can intervene.

However, this idea that Impulsive, plus Curious, and Overconfidence (presumably at base levels, because nobody has said otherwise) is so bad that it's clearly a lot worse than Impulsive at CR6 (-20 points), or say Charitable (CR9) (-22 points) bothers me. It's unfair to make it worse, given the similar point return, and it's unfair when the Impulsive Curious character (overconfident or not) is likely to be very useful to the GM for moving things along.

[Apollonian]

I've noticed a couple tendencies here on the forum that I quite dislike. One is the idea that players need to be punished or controlled by the disadvantages that they take for their PCs - at its worst, it's a very adversarial relationship between GM and players, which the GM then blames on the system instead of working out how to actually play a game with friends. That tendency isn't universal, or even consistent by which people present it, but it's irritating as all hell.

(The other tendencies I hate are nitpicking, blocking (especially common in Reality Seeds or setting premises), an urge to use GURPS to simulate everything complete with points costs, and an emphasis on mechanics to the exclusion of all other parts of the RPG experience.)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Icelander

...Reasonable people contact the authorities or pass things up the chain of command instead of confronting one dire threat to the kingdom/nation/world after another, all by themselves and without adequate support.

I got kicked out of a game once because my staid, solid character reported unusual activity up the military chain of command instead of haring off and investigating it myself. Was a Trail of Cthulhu campaign and my understanding of the game's expectations was not aligned with the GM's.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Apollonian

I've noticed a couple tendencies here on the forum that I quite dislike. One is the idea that players need to be punished or controlled by the disadvantages that they take for their PCs - at its worst, it's a very adversarial relationship between GM and players, which the GM then blames on the system instead of working out how to actually play a game with friends. That tendency isn't universal, or even consistent by which people present it, but it's irritating as all hell.

(The other tendencies I hate are nitpicking, blocking (especially common in Reality Seeds or setting premises), an urge to use GURPS to simulate everything complete with points costs, and an emphasis on mechanics to the exclusion of all other parts of the RPG experience.)

Isn't it fairly reasonable to expect posters on forums dedicated to GURPS rules to respond differently to a stated campaign premise than someone who has agreed to play in it?

The forumites have no social contract in place which makes them participants in an improv scene with anyone posting on the forums. It seems natural to assume that by seeking feedback from a GURPS forum, a poster is looking for advice, criticism and help in modeling something using GURPS mechanics.

Buying into a scene or premise would not provide the GURPS-related assistance one assumes that a poster is implicitly seeking by posting in the GURPS subforum, not Roleplaying in General or the Play-by-Post subforums.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Apollonian

I've noticed a couple tendencies here on the forum that I quite dislike. One is the idea that players need to be punished or controlled by the disadvantages that they take for their PCs.

I can't remember having to do that. The player of Nyx the Barbarian not only embraced Nyx's Pyromania but danced with it like she didn't care who was watching.

This does suggest to me that picking Disads to get a certain number of cp is the wrong reason and that doing it because the Player _wants_ to play a character who has that trait is the right reason.