Disads: the Second Best CP Deal in GURPS

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

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.

Indeed.

It seems to me, if players and GMs want to mimic many (I might even say most) fictional protagonists in media with even the slighest action-adventure-y bent, the characters ought to have reasons for behaviour that is, in the context of real reality, profoundly risky, stupid and against all reasonable regulations.

Staid, solid characters may work for a one-shot adventure where some contrivance places them in harm's way, but if they are meant to be center stage in a new madcap escapade every week, they'll need some careful thought as regards motivation and plausibility.

Frankly, I find solid and staid characters only work as adventuring protagonists when paired with one or more characters who made Self-Preservation and Rationality their dump stats, as well as strong reasons to follow their more adventure-prone allies into one folly after another.

[Apollonian]

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

Why do you make that assumption? Why do you assume that posters on this forum share your goals and gaming habits with regard to GURPS? Look at this recent thread for one counterexample.

I value your posts - you have a remarkably detail-oriented, meticulous posting style in regard to this game. But not everyone plays this way. Since a detailed, mechanical way of playing GURPS requires a lot of verbiage, the impression I get from browsing this forum is that This Is How To Play GURPS. I know that's not true, as I for one play it differently. But I do feel pushed far to the edge of this community because of it. (I would like to see more support from SJG on lighter GURPS playstyles, but I think by their nature, those playstyles simply do not require the kind of support that sells... how much wordcount can you actually get out of How To Play GURPS On An Index Card?)

Maybe we should check the premise of a thread or a post before immediately jumping in to examine how it does or doesn't fit into our own personal playstyles. Or carry on as you are; I've said my piece.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Apollonian

Why do you make that assumption? Why do you assume that posters on this forum share your goals and gaming habits with regard to GURPS? Look at this recent thread for one counterexample.

I value your posts - you have a remarkably detail-oriented, meticulous posting style in regard to this game. But not everyone plays this way. Since a detailed, mechanical way of playing GURPS requires a lot of verbiage, the impression I get from browsing this forum is that This Is How To Play GURPS. I know that's not true, as I for one play it differently. But I do feel pushed far to the edge of this community because of it. (I would like to see more support from SJG on lighter GURPS playstyles, but I think by their nature, those playstyles simply do not require the kind of support that sells... how much wordcount can you actually get out of How To Play GURPS On An Index Card?)

Maybe we should check the premise of a thread or a post before immediately jumping in to examine how it does or doesn't fit into our own personal playstyles. Or carry on as you are; I've said my piece.

I think your post contains a pretty good argument for every poster providing what input they can, based on how they play. If that's more detail or a different focus than someone else wants for their games, well, it's a lot easier to ignore detailed information that you don't need than it is to conjure up detail you need but don't have.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Frankly, I find solid and staid characters only work as adventuring protagonists when paired with one or more characters who made Self-Preservation and Rationality their dump stats, as well as strong reasons to follow their more adventure-prone allies into one folly after another.

In my perception, if you absolutely have to play fictional protagonists as realistic characters then you have to re-set the reality of their motivation as opposed to how they're perceived: the "solid and staid" character actually isn't like that on the inside and instead is going to do the same stupid things as all the others while trying to seem as if they're the sensible one.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I think your post contains a pretty good argument for every poster providing what input they can, based on how they play. If that's more detail or a different focus than someone else wants for their games, well, it's a lot easier to ignore detailed information that you don't need than it is to conjure up detail you need but don't have.

Also it can be a function of how you ask for information: if you don't give precise, detailed instructions in regards to what you want to hear from people they're going to make assumptions and probably wrong ones.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

In my perception, if you absolutely have to play fictional protagonists as realistic characters then you have to re-set the reality of their motivation as opposed to how they're perceived: the "solid and staid" character actually isn't like that on the inside and instead is going to do the same stupid things as all the others while trying to seem as if they're the sensible one.

Or, indeed, solid and staid characters may only be solid and staid by contrast to their flat-out insane allies. Given that the most humble, conservative, careful and non-violent characters in any long-running campaign I've run have usually killed more people than any legendary murderer you'd care to name and run more risks than any ten famous daredevils, just by reluctantly taking part in years of play time, I think it's safe to say that by comparison with nearly anyone other than the PCs and others like them, such characters would probably be regarded as arrogant thrill-seeking mass-murderers.

Contrasts are important for characterization in general. Which is why character creation should be a collaborative process between everyone involved in a campaign.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

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

Rare, but it happens that GMs don't read characters carefully.

[martinl]

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
...
(The other tendencies I hate are nitpicking, blocking, 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.)

Huh, you appear to be me. Pleased to meet me!
(looks at post history)

... OK, you may not be me, but I wish to agree vigorously.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

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.

Hrm. Bad GM. I'd have had the officer involved tell you to put a small scout unit together and check it out, then give you an unreasonably short time frame because officers are like that.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kax

Hrm. Bad GM. I'd have had the officer involved tell you to put a small scout unit together and check it out, then give you an unreasonably short time frame because officers are like that.

Eh, yes and no. I misunderstood the purpose of the intro sessions we were playing, and thought that during the adventure, we'd be developing reasons for our future selves to want to care about Cthulhoid things. The GM, I think, had in mind that this was our first opportunity to indulge in our already established tendency to delve into such things.

From his point of view, I was even worse than Leroy Jenkins. I was actively crapping on his adventure by (as mentioned above) "Blocking," and refusing to engage.

That Guy. You know, the one who says "Hey, I know I'm being a dork to the noble, or talking over the quiet shy player, or stabbing my buddies. But I'm Just Playing My Character!"

That was me that game. GMs can and should boot such folks. Granted, he booted me before I had a chance to change my behavior, but he wasn't wrong.

I was being That Guy. (I just didn't know it.)

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

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

Well, while the alternative is by no means Bad Wrong Fun, a lot of people (myself included, I confess), want a story arc to emerge from the actions of the player characters and NPCs in a campaign. And such story arcs often demand corresponding character arcs.

Many players, in my experience, take Disadvantages for their PCs that they plan to struggle with and overcome in the process of a satisfying dramatic arc for the character. And I encourage this. Of course, the outcome is not predestined and the eventual dramatic arc might turn out as tragedy or dark comedy instead of melodrama, but knowing what kind of character growth a player wants his character to strive towards is, in my opinion, a valuable tool for GMs.

To take examples from ongoing games of mine, a player took Low Self-Image specifically in order to struggle with it during the first adventure, aiming to save up points and buy it off at a dramatically satisfying moment for the character, when she realized her potential and came to terms with her powers.

Another player took Obsession which is designed to be fulfilled in play and God only knows what it will be replaced with, if it isn't bought off. More PCs than I can name have started out brash, young, naive and impulsive, but grown into more pragmatic and capable professionals ready for actual responsibilities during play.

For that matter, Chase Taylor is designed to allow a GM to drag him into nearly any adventure with little effort, through his Chronic Hero Syndrome and being in love with a Supervillain's aspiring sidekick slash gangster moll. He's not supposed to buy off all his Disadvantages yet, but any kind of satisfying ending for the character would have to include either a heroic sacrifice, character growth that allows him to escape an unhealthy relationship dynamic or him and the object of his affection each successfully buying off enough Disadvantages to live Happily Ever After somewhere, preferably with regular visits from his daughters.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

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...

Well, from the point of view of the other PCs, who are presumably the ones holding him back, they are quite likely to care what happens to their ally. After all, if they didn't, they'd probably just leave him.