Maximum Realistic Reaction Bonus

[Alonsua]

Hi there,

today I have created a very beautiful (+6/2) super charismatic (+4) celebrity-like reputation (+4) singer (+2). Then, I have read the part in "How to be a GURPS GM" where it points out how ".... someone with a +5 reaction bonus, from 3 or 4 social traits, is realistic; one with a +15 reaction bonus, from seven or eight social traits, is cinematic..." and here comes my doubt:

Since I have used 4 social traits (Appearance + Charisma + Reputation + Voice) should I assume that my character is realistic? If I do so, should I apply +16/12 bonus to reaction rolls, or what? What might be the maximum realistic bonus to reactions? Shall I stick to pick only the maximum situational one (like Very Beautiful +6 if she is seen) and use the rest to suck penalties or in quick contests?

Thanks for answering.

[vicky_molokh]

Having someone that beautiful luck out to also be charismatic on the level of some religion-founders and with a great voice looks rather unlikely. Whether that's outright cinematic is a matter of some debate, similar to other improbable-but-not-impossible things.

[Anthony]

To the degree reaction bonuses are realistic at all, they probably aren't strictly additive (so having all of those traits wouldn't add up to a +16). However, any such rule should probably also change the cost of those traits.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Anthony

To the degree reaction bonuses are realistic at all, they probably aren't strictly additive (so having all of those traits wouldn't add up to a +16). However, any such rule should probably also change the cost of those traits.

Quoted for truth.

This will also point out that most of the bonuses only apply in specific situations. But that's probably a theory question and a tangent of sorts.

On the specific character, you specified that they are the founder of a religion. This means they're pretty likely to have not only large positive reputations, but also huge negative reputations. If you're not doing that, you don't have a realistic character. And whether the reputation is true or not doesn't matter. As a matter of self preservation existing religions (and political systems, most of the time) will brand the founder of a rising rival religion (philosophy, political movement, ect) as a public enemy, charlatan, and so forth.

This doesn't just extend to religious leaders. All sorts of people with these talents get branded in order to protect (ironically or actually) others from the talk, the looks, and the influence.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Since I have used 4 social traits (Appearance + Charisma + Reputation + Voice) should I assume that my character is realistic?

Such people do exist—gorgeous, charismatic, beloved, and smooth-talking—but they're relatively rare. This is a cinematic trope, but it's not a completely implausible one. The line between realistic and cinematic is very fuzzy in this case. How To Be a GURPS GM isn't telling you where that line is, just that it exists, somewhere.

If I do so, should I apply +16/12 bonus to reaction rolls, or what?

I'd stick with the rules until I've rolled a few reactions. Remember to apply all the given penalties: if characters try to take advantage of all those bonuses to ask for outrageous things, they'll get hefty penalties. They may also gain a negative Reputation (Takes unfair advantage of how much people like them) which will impact rolls, if they do it too much.

[Anders]

Remember also that there are some safeguards built into the system. First of all, you reach a level of diminishing returns - once you're at +10, an extra +1 doesn't get you that much extra. Second, the GM can always override the reaction roll, especially if it would short-circuit the scenario.

[Kabufu]

The GM is always free to fill the world with lecherous perverts constantly hitting on the PC, jealous people that resent the PC for their looks and seemingly easy life, NPCs who will do anything they ask... as long as the NPC looks good and improve their own reputation from being around such a renowned celebrity. A posse of utterly enthralled admirers might actually be full disadvantage, i.e. Enemy (Watcher, Live-tweets your every move).


Having so many fans your can't leave your house and having a million friends, none of whom actually care about you as a person at all are all real phenomena.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kabufu

The GM is always free to fill the world with lecherous perverts constantly hitting on the PC, jealous people that resent the PC for their looks and seemingly easy life, NPCs who will do anything they ask... as long as the NPC looks good and improve their own reputation from being around such a renowned celebrity. A posse of utterly enthralled admirers might actually be full disadvantage, i.e. Enemy (Watcher, Live-tweets your every move).


Having so many fans your can't leave your house and having a million friends, none of whom actually care about you as a person at all are all real phenomena.

I'm strongly opposed to such an approach to a fairly-bought Advantage. It reminds me of Emily's story about how when she had a character very skilled in jumping, the GM interpreted that as jumping too high and overshooting the target. That's antagonistic.

[Kabufu]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm strongly opposed to such an approach to a fairly-bought Advantage. It reminds me of Emily's story about how when she had a character very skilled in jumping, the GM interpreted that as jumping too high and overshooting the target. That's antagonistic.

I agree completely, that is a terrible and belligerent way to run a game.

However, I do feel that elements of what I said earlier can be used if the combination of advantages gets out of hand or starts breaking game so badly the other players are getting upstaged.

[munin]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm strongly opposed to such an approach to a fairly-bought Advantage. …

Except in this case, one of the advantages explicitly says it comes with "nuisances" like slave traders which will "become a problem for you" (p. B21). They might not seek you out regularly like an Enemy would, but if you encounter them, they're more of a problem than they would be for others.