Disads: the Second Best CP Deal in GURPS

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

Remember that the example character also has Impulsiveness [and Overconfidence and Curiosity]

Ok, yeah, I lost track of the thread a bit. (All the Kickstarter excitement is making me loopy!) That is a rough combination.

I might quibble about looking at the Medusa, but I certainly agree that this is a character who is likely to get into a lot of unnecessary trouble. As GM, I would dissuade a player from that combo in a gritty or realistic campaign where thoughtless actions can lead to a quick and messy death (or could put the rest of the team in serious jeopardy).

In a more cinematic register, it could work, but I would also expect them to have SoD (Adventuring Companions) and would make sure that one or more of the other PCs were more level-headed and willing to keep this one in check. Yet another reason why it's important to think about this stuff as a team. For some groups, it can be tons of fun to have a few characters who need a tight leash. For others, it's an obnoxious headache.

In most long-term campaigns, my players have slowly mellowed some of their mental disads over time to reflect their growth. Sometimes they buy them down, convert to a quirk, or improve the control number; other times they replace them with other disads that seem appropriate or use story events to explain buying them off entirely. This also helps keep things fresh at the table. It might be fun to hold back the impulsive klepto for the first campaign arc, but after a year or two of play, it can get stale.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

This is the character who says "I'll just take a quick look at that Medusa, it'll be fine" and firmly believes it.

What part of that fits Overconfidence's "within reason". Where in Curious does it "commit suicide immediately", I mean, you don't what it's like to jump off of a twelve story building fo you? And what about Impulsive says "leap into traffic because to do otherwise might be planning"?

There is nothing in that combo that says "Drink a bottle of cyanide because you don't know it tastes like, you'll probably be fine, and don't stop to think about it".

Again, it's -35 points not -100. Stop inflating things.


Now, that isn't to say that some things don't catastrophically combine. I don't expect the Bad Temper, Berserk, Hemophiliac, with Low HT, low HP, and the Vow "Never Wears Armor" to survive. But then when someone piles up somewhere around -90 in disads, I'm willing to accept that they mean to die bloody...

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Dalin

.... I certainly agree that this is a character who is likely to get into a lot of unnecessary trouble.

I would like to point out there is a difference between "gets into unnecessary trouble" and "expected to be dead by the end of the first session". I'm arguing against some people's notion that the latter is the proper course.

In most long-term campaigns, my players have slowly mellowed some of their mental disads over time to reflect their growth.

The only disad I've ever seen bought down (and not even off) was Berserk.


Note: I'm not talking about disads acquired during play, those tend to get removed as fast as the Players can contrive to see it happen.

It might be fun to hold back the impulsive klepto for the first campaign arc, but after a year or two of play, it can get stale.

Why are you holding him back? Let him run free and suffer for everything he gets up to. He'll temper himself... or end up making a new character when when the klepto winds up jailed for too many sessions...

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

The only disad I've ever seen bought down (and not even off) was Berserk.

One of my 3e games ran for 10 years and the characters changed a lot over that time.

Why are you holding him back? Let him run free and suffer for everything he gets up to. He'll temper himself... or end up making a new character when the klepto winds up jailed for too many sessions...

That works for some types of stories, but not for others. A-Team episodes (to date myself) wouldn't have been as much fun if they left BA behind whenever they needed to fly somewhere.

But, ultimately, that's probably why some of the players bought off or adjusted their disadvantages. It became clear that it wasn't going to make sense for the rest of the group to continue putting up with their issues. The players, thus, tempered their characters to allow the team to function better. I've also definitely had players who retired characters who didn't, ultimately, fit the tone of the game. We had a character who was far too trigger happy with his crossbow (impulsive? bad temper? bloodlust? I can't remember) and after getting the entire group in trouble with the local mafia, the rest of the players made it clear that his character was creating unacceptable problems. This actually made for a fairly dramatic "breakup" scene in the game.

I tend to be very generous if people want to adjust their characters after play begins. I want them to have fun playing them, so if there's a plausible way to explain changes, I'll go with their plans.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

The only disad I've ever seen bought down (and not even off) was Berserk.

I've changed quite a few, paying a few points to do so. Lecherous replaced by a Loved One dependent; Post-Combat Shakes bought off entirely when I learned how hard it can bite; Greed replaced by Honesty and Charitable with better self-control numbers . . . characters change.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by Rupert

With enemies that one CP has, it's not about mucnkinism. The problem is that the enemy goes after the PCs that's bought them, and the rest of the party closes ranks around that PC, usually without even needing to have bought Codes of Honour of Senses of Duty that require it, because most groups' social contracts include them as an unspoken assumption. Having closed ranks and fought off the enemy, they have now made an enemy of that enemy too, and as it's 'in play' they get no points for having done so. Nobody need have ill or even slightly munchkinny intentions for this to occur.

The munchkin is the player that has taken the enemy without checking with the other players or, possibly, the GM.

The way I'd play it if that ever got past character generation is that the other PCs would get a bonus CP for getting drawn into someone else's enemy every time it triggers. This would only count for an enemy big enough to challenge the party, of course, but the point is to cover that circumstance.

From the first post, 'Enemy, very powerful, all the time' is going to get old very quickly and the other PCs are likely to want to take it out of the picture. So the PC with the enemy either buys it off or down with all earned points, or the enemy gets him on his own and takes him out.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by Kax

The munchkin is the player that has taken the enemy without checking with the other players or, possibly, the GM.

The way I'd play it if that ever got past character generation is that the other PCs would get a bonus CP for getting drawn into someone else's enemy every time it triggers. This would only count for an enemy big enough to challenge the party, of course, but the point is to cover that circumstance.

From the first post, 'Enemy, very powerful, all the time' is going to get old very quickly and the other PCs are likely to want to take it out of the picture. So the PC with the enemy either buys it off or down with all earned points, or the enemy gets him on his own and takes him out.

Hm, why would any GM let in a character without checking it out?

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I would like to point out there is a difference between "gets into unnecessary trouble" and "expected to be dead by the end of the first session". I'm arguing against some people's notion that the latter is the proper course.

The proper course is to abide by the rules of the game that your group has agreed to play; absent house rules to the contrary. When playing GURPS, a Disadvantage describes the effects of having it on your character sheet. Curious [-5*] declares that encountering a $thing which is not already 100% familiar to the character requires a self-control check. Failing this self-control check mandates the character take any and every step necessary to completely familiarize themselves with $thing no matter how dangerous it may be to do so. It doesn't render them stupid. They know it might be dangerous. They still do it.

Depending on the $thing they aren't familiar with, it is entirely possible for a character to enter play, fail a single roll and then effectively commit suicide ... for 5 points.

Again, absent house rules to contrary.

Most groups don't consider the above acceptable. They go, "That's stupid!" and change the rules of the game without really thinking about it. You can't rely on groups doing that though; some don't. And here, in these forums, we can't say anything meaningful about a group's house rules if we don't even know the change has happened.

RAW, GURPS Disadvantages are of such severity that a player should stop and think about what it means and whether they're okay with that before putting it on their character sheet.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

RAW, GURPS Disadvantages are of such severity that a player should stop and think about what it means and whether they're okay with that before putting it on their character sheet.

This doesn't match my experience nor my reading of the rules. I've been playing GURPS for a long time with scores of people in multiple states and at conventions. I have never, ever seen a GM make Curious (a 5-point disadvantage) become a suicide pact. The beginning of the chapter on disadvantages doesn't have a dire warning that you should really think twice before taking any of them or your character will quite possibly be forced to kill themselves in the first session. Within the fiction of the game world, how would any of these characters even survive to get to the start of the adventure if their disadvantages were so outrageous?

There are also textual examples of play in the rules that don't enforce this type of "RAW." The sample at the end of DFRPG Exploits (pp. 103-104), for example, includes Puddin' Noddington, a character with Curiosity (self-control 9). The example opens with her lounging around instead of investigating the super interesting locked entrance to the catacombs. Admittedly, this relates to her laziness disadvantage and maybe she made the roll before play began. Later, when Puddin' hears movement from ahead, she raises her hand to stop the group and allows Yvor to step in front of her. No mention of a self-control roll to avoid racing forward to take a look at the exciting vampire. Later still, when Puddin' finds a chest that appears unlocked, she doesn't trust it's appearance and chooses to lower it down on a rope so that Uncle Seamus can check it with Detect Magic first. I'm sure she would have needed to roll if the others wanted her to leave the chest behind, but nothing prevented her from taking precautions before opening it to find the goodies inside.

To me, this sounds like she's "naturally very inquisitive," as the first line of Curious says, without being a lunatic.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Dalin

This doesn't match my experience nor my reading of the rules. I've been playing GURPS for a long time with scores of people in multiple states and at conventions. I have never, ever seen a GM make Curious (a 5-point disadvantage) become a suicide pact.

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.

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.

The example of Puddin' is one where two disadvantages go against each other to allow the player to (at least some of the time) pick and choose which one to play up in the moment.