Why is Broad-Minded a Quirk?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Let's not get too far from the RAW description of a trait when discussing the RAW, okay?

Originally Posted by GURPS RAW

Broad-Minded
A trivial form of Xenophilia (p. 162).

Originally Posted by GURPS RAW also

Xenophilia
-10 points*
You are instinctively fascinated
and attracted by strangers and aliens,
no matter how dangerous or
frightening they appear to be.

So, that, reduced to quirk level.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

So, that, reduced to quirk level.

That is okay, but the post about stealing effects from Gullibility wasn't very appropriate.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

I've always wondered this, especially in a "normal" TL8 type setting (such as our Earth).

The concept of Quirks seems to have mutated without purging and is a bit of a muddle now.

Broad-minded and a few other beneficial 'quirks' were corruptions that popped up in supplement materials in either 2e or 3e and were not extirpated as they should have been in the transition to 4e.

Really, digging back to the roots of the idea in 1e, a Quirk should just be any sort of non-beneficial, minor role-playable feature that distinguishes the character. There is no need for it to be actually disavantageous -- the -1 point is a bonus and incentive to roleplay.

[Jeffr0]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Really, digging back to the roots of the idea in 1e, a Quirk should just be any sort of non-beneficial, minor role-playable feature that distinguishes the character.

-1 Likes Green

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

There is no need for it to be actually disavantageous -- the -1 point is a bonus and incentive to roleplay.

There WAS no need for it to actually be disadvantageous.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

There WAS no need for it to actually be disadvantageous.

Is no need, I think you'll find if you re-read the description in Characters.

[Kaldrin]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

-1 Likes Green

That wouldn't be enough in any of my games. Quirks do have to be enough of a trait to be playable often enough to justify the point you get from them. This one wouldn't play enough to even be worth a point. :)

[nick012000]

Originally Posted by Kaldrin

That wouldn't be enough in any of my games. Quirks do have to be enough of a trait to be playable often enough to justify the point you get from them. This one wouldn't play enough to even be worth a point. :)

Sure it is. It'd be basically a Quirk-level Trademark. When you've got a choice between things, you'll usually go with the green thing, all other things being equal.

[Phil Masters]

Quirks got a bit out of hand by the end of the 3rd edition period, so the definition was tightened up a little for 4th edition (and the whole concept of physical quirks was formally added to the game). They may not have to be actively disadvantageous, but they do have to be noticeably roleplayable. You'll note that sample characters in 4e books tend to have slightly fewer quirks these days; they're more likely to be queried at the editing stage.

[nerdvana]

Originally Posted by nick012000

Sure it is. It'd be basically a Quirk-level Trademark. When you've got a choice between things, you'll usually go with the green thing, all other things being equal.

To make it playable I'd take it one farther... if the two things are slightly unbalanced you'll go for the green one even if the other would perform better otherwise. (Not if there is a significant unbalancing, then you can go with the logical choice)