[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Chummy

[johndallman]

Chummy [-5 or -10] is a strong liking for having company and working in a team. It comes in two levels, which were separate disadvantages under GURPS 3e, where they appeared. At [-5], "Chummy", you react to others at +2 under normal circumstances. You are unhappy when alone, and use IQ-based skills at -1. At [-10], "Gregarious", you're miserable on your own, using IQ skills at -2, or at -1 in a group of 4 or less, and react to other at +4. There's a quirk-level version, Congenial.

There's a case to be made that the value of this disadvantage depends strongly on play style. In a small group of players, where PCs are likely to have to operate solo, it's much worse than in a large group, especially if PCs are rarely isolated. In any case, it's a poor choice for specialist infiltrators, since I really don't think guards whom you're trying to avoid count as company.

Both levels of this disadvantage are reasonably common options on published character templates. They're also normal for pack animals, especially dogs. Bio-Tech has pheromone-based versions, and the possibility of making a species Chummy to improve societal cohesion, and Power-Ups 6 extends the quirk-level version. Psis rationalises them as a mild addiction to mental contact, and Social Engineering has their effect on mob formation, while Space uses them as markers of a species' gregariousness. Template Toolkit 1 suggests them for sailors, since ships are crowded.

I've only used this once on a PC that I recall, a naval engineering officer. He spends his time on ships, with lots of people around, so he's normally OK. I considered it for a bard in TORG, but it was obviously going to bite hard in a small party of high-point characters; I made a different unfortunate choice of disadvantage.

[Bruno]

I've regularly used it on my string of Minotaur Barbarians because it's an endearing character trait for a big strong brute to be scared of being left alone. Also it gives a good reason to draw them into conversation and thus make sure low IQ and social penalties are actual disadvantages, rather than let people hide him at the back of the party with a tarp over his head or something.

EDIT: Mrugnak was notorious for waving "Hello!" at every new group of humanoids we encountered. Then he'd absolutely lose his cool if they attacked because how rude.

[Icelander]

I've always emphasised the part of Chummy that calls for roleplaying being a friendly, outgoing, social person and usually forget to apply the penalty. In any case, most Chummy characters rarely qualify for the penalty, as if circumstances force them to be alone at any point, they'll usually be rolling against DX-, Per- or HT-based skills, like a Stealth check, weapon skill to take down a sentry or something similar, before rejoining the group now that the situation no longer requires that social activities be put on hold for life-and-death reasons.

I mean, sure, if they get lost or something, the Navigation rolls to find the group again are at a penalty. And I guess that if everyone but them was captured and they had to rescue them, the Tactics roll would suffer the penalty. Doesn't come up much, though.

Hmmm... yeah, I suppose Camouflage is sometimes affected, for PCs who are snipers but still have Chummy, but really, a realistic sniper will usually have an observer with him and it's fine for an experienced sniper to be feeling pretty exposed and more prone to making mistakes when he's forced to do without an observer.

Mostly, Chummy is an awesome trait for PCs, because it is inherently a pro-'engagement in the game world' trait. It encourages treating NPCs as people, not just threats for foes, bonus-granting devices for allies or mobile scenery if neither applies.

And it prevents PCs from isolating themselves from everyone else in order not to give any potential foe a weakness to attack, deciding not to talk to anyone in order never to give up vital information or other such possibly sensible, but fairly hostile to many types of story, defence strategies against a hostile world.

So, speaking as a GM, I love it and would encourage as many players as possible to take it. Much like Code of Honour or Sense of Duty, it's a Disadvantage that actually makes the PC more relatable, functional and interesting, more like a person than a Murder-Hobo designed to extract treasure and experience from dungeon after dungeon. And it makes a wonderful grommet for plot hooks!

---

As a player, I've taken Chummy for about half of my characters, I think. Usually those who are more likable and sympathetic characters. Those without Chummy tend to have Callous, Selfish or some other negative trait instead. And I very much dislike the 'mysterious loner' archetype for PCs, if only because it limits the scope of actual roleplaying a lot. If the character is experiencing a whole spectrum of strong feelings, but only inwardly and he never really talks to anyone, how do you convey that at the table?

My preference for Chummy for heroic characters also might have something to do with me having started to play GURPS with campaigns designed to emulate the more realistic technothrillers and military fiction, where the heroes are always a part of a functioning social group and usually rely on their emotional support network to be able to function in psychologically difficult situations.

GURPS Special Ops 3e actually recommends Chummy for realistic soldiers, noting that volunteer militaries, and especially close-knit small groups of elite soldiers, like special operations forces, tend to self-select for Chummy individuals and strongly discourage Loners.

The athletic, driven, strong-willed people who aren't joiners don't excel in the military. They may make the first solo climb of a dangerous mountain, found a successful enterprise despite difficulty working with others or become a pro athlete in any sport other than a team sport, but they are not going to do well in an organisation that is intensely social and inherently cooperative.

So, I guess that right from the start of my GURPS experience, Chummy was recommended for PCs and associated with positive personality traits, while Loner was called out for making it harder to succeed in the context of a group activity. Like in a group of PCs, which, no matter the setting or campaign, will usually share many traits with a team of special operations soldiers, as they also tend to go into dangerous situations and have to rely on each other to survive, solve problems and defeat opposition.

To take my most recent character as an example, Chase Taylor (Edit: Obligatory link to Jade Serenity campaign recaps) has Chummy and can usually be assumed to immediately like anyone who isn't actively unpleasant, bigoted or evil. If he meets people who seem genuinely sympathetic and likable, having a lot in common with him (or otherwise appealing to him), he's prone to very quickly exhibit strong emotional attachment and, frankly embarrassing displays of affection, at least by the standards of Western masculine taciturnity except with close, long-time friends.

Taylor is deeply hurt that many strangers whom he tries to be friendly with will judge him for his Social Stigma (Criminal Record) and subsequent Reputation, though he tries not to show how much this bothers him. And he'll even talk to people who seem to dislike or fear him, if only to avoid being lonely, not to mention trying to change their minds about him.

I guess most of the recaps having covered a desperate survival situation hasn't given this much scope to appear yet. Not to mention that the events of Friday, 3 February 2017, have left Taylor in an atypically downcast state. He's not actually insomniac, paranoid or depressive, but these are common symptoms and/or natural human responses to acute stress reaction, intense guilt and complex emotional entanglements obviously leading to disaster.

I guess whether 'close enough to listen to someone breathe while they sleep' counts as having company is debatable, but it's more company than no one being near and, in any case, other Disadvantages would have overwhelmed Chummy at that point, even if it would activate the penalties to remain outside Sherilyn Bell's door rather than with the other people in the building.

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've regularly used it on my string of Minotaur Barbarians because it's an endearing character trait for a big strong brute to be scared of being left alone. Also it gives a good reason to draw them into conversation and thus make sure low IQ and social penalties are actual disadvantages, rather than let people hide him at the back of the party with a tarp over his head or something.

EDIT: Mrugnak was notorious for waving "Hello!" at every new group of humanoids we encountered. Then he'd absolutely lose his cool if they attacked because how rude.

First up, I love the mental image of a minotaur with a tarp over his head. I might just play that character some day in the hopes of NPCs reacting to the tarp.

Like Icelander, I make Chummy a go-to for face characters and soldiers. Most of the time, you’ll be with order PCs, just to make the GM’s job easier and keep more players involved. For a face, interacting with someone – doing your job as a face – means not facing those penalties.

I even imagine espirit de corps would essentially train people to be Chummy. I would be Loner or Uncongenial normally in real life, but during an army taster course (essentially spend a week in the army to see how suited you are) I found myself adapting to the group and being attached to them very quickly. It did wonders for building my confidence up.

Dogs having Chummy raises the question “do animals count?” Suddenly that knight’s horse or a druid’s animal companion becomes even more important.

Does people count as company when they’re asleep? Because I could see Chummy being a problem for party members on watch. Then again it’s only a -1 penalty, which isn’t insurmountable.

Gregarious, requiring a group of 5 to be at full faculties, seems vastly more troublesome.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Railstar

Dogs having Chummy raises the question “do animals count?”

Psychological research leans toward "yes." Most non-psychopathic humans are happy to be friends with, say, a cat or a dog, and are measurably affected when Ms. Bitey isn't around. That suggests that a greater-than-usual attachment to companions could be toward pets as much as toward members of sapient species. I'd be fine with that spin on Chummy (in fact, it seems to me that building the ever-popular kid raised by dogs without Chummy like the rest of the pack would be bizarre). As GM, I'd give players a choice: "Animals, sapient species, or both?" There's a built-in balancing factor, in that if your choice is inclusive and nearly always present, you'll very often be stupidly friendly when you shouldn't be, while if your choice is exclusive and commonly absent, you'll very often be unhappy and distracted.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Railstar

First up, I love the mental image of a minotaur with a tarp over his head. I might just play that character some day in the hopes of NPCs reacting to the tarp.

Like Icelander, I make Chummy a go-to for face characters and soldiers. Most of the time, you’ll be with order PCs, just to make the GM’s job easier and keep more players involved. For a face, interacting with someone – doing your job as a face – means not facing those penalties.

I even imagine espirit de corps would essentially train people to be Chummy. I would be Loner or Uncongenial normally in real life, but during an army taster course (essentially spend a week in the army to see how suited you are) I found myself adapting to the group and being attached to them very quickly. It did wonders for building my confidence up.

Dogs having Chummy raises the question “do animals count?” Suddenly that knight’s horse or a druid’s animal companion becomes even more important.

Does people count as company when they’re asleep? Because I could see Chummy being a problem for party members on watch. Then again it’s only a -1 penalty, which isn’t insurmountable.

Gregarious, requiring a group of 5 to be at full faculties, seems vastly more troublesome.

Note that the two do not necessarily go together. Shaun Murphy obviously does not seem to have chummy(he is autistic after all) though he seems to have charitable or SoD patients and he obviously has CoH surgeons. He does however have esprit de corps(San Jose, St Bonaventure Hospital).

Leroy Jethro Gibbs definitely does not have Chummy but definitely has esprit de corps.

[Railstar]

Thanks Kromm! I definitely figured that was how it worked in real-life, but I wasn't sure how fair it would be in GURPS rules.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Note that the two do not necessarily go together. Shaun Murphy obviously does not seem to have chummy(he is autistic after all) though he seems to have charitable or SoD patients and he obviously has CoH surgeons. He does however have esprit de corps(San Jose, St Bonaventure Hospital).

Leroy Jethro Gibbs definitely does not have Chummy but definitely has esprit de corps.

It is possible to have one without the other, but I was referring more to the context of what Icelander mentioned about military forces tend to self-select for Chummy - I was adding that sometimes someone who wasn't Chummy before can end up Chummy or Congenial because of the training and environment.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Psychological research leans toward "yes." Most non-psychopathic humans are happy to be friends with, say, a cat or a dog, and are measurably affected when Ms. Bitey isn't around. That suggests that a greater-than-usual attachment to companions could be toward pets as much as toward members of sapient species. I'd be fine with that spin on Chummy (in fact, it seems to me that building the ever-popular kid raised by dogs without Chummy like the rest of the pack would be bizarre). As GM, I'd give players a choice: "Animals, sapient species, or both?" There's a built-in balancing factor, in that if your choice is inclusive and nearly always present, you'll very often be stupidly friendly when you shouldn't be, while if your choice is exclusive and commonly absent, you'll very often be unhappy and distracted.

I'm going to go with "yes" too. Pets are a well-known way of alleviating loneliness.

[Otaku]

I see to recall Chummy being one of my "preferred" Disadvantages under the 3e rules. Gregarious wasn't bad if the Party plus expected NPC's were going to be enough that you wouldn't suffer the consequences too often. Of course, that doesn't mean much; I think "Loner" was as well, but I'm much more hesitant to take that trait now. XP Like Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions), the traits seems pretty good from the GM's perspective as well.

All of which brings me to a question; how shrewd (and acceptable) is it to combine Chummy/Gregarious with an Ally (or Allies)? Though there certainly is a bit of munchkin-ism in it, this is actually where roll-play and roleplay intersect for me: as long as the GM can handle the load, it gives him or her a good excuse for a GMPC, and it allows me to fraternize with an NPC without worrying about them dying off for stupid reasons or investing in them being seen as a drain on the party (or proving stupid because the GM planned on killing him/her/it/them the whole time >_<).

Chummy only grants 5 CP back, but when combined with Dependent as well, seems like it might be a good way to create a logical NPC-PC relationship without being a huge drain on resources. Assuming the GM and other players are down with it.

[GWJ]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Madness Dossier has a way to inflict it, as with most mental disadvantages.

Where is it? I can´t find it.