[Basic] Disadvantage of the week: Bloodlust

[Flyndaran]

I certainly think that it's one reasonable way to roleplay the struggle, but certainly not the only way.
Failing to obey one of them will penalize XP anyway, so no need to further penalize the player, right?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think this is supported by published rules, though it's certainly in keeping with some media.

Originally Posted by Jasonft

It's the way I always played it. If you have one disad saying 'Do this thing' and another disad saying 'Don't do this thing' I do a quick roll off if I am in doubt. Results weighted towards disads worth more points of course.

Desire to kill the sentry versus direct standing order to not kill the sentry. As an example.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...This description does not account for your previous assertion that they would be effectively stunned for a couple rounds...

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I certainly think that it's one reasonable way to roleplay the struggle, but certainly not the only way.
Failing to obey one of them will penalize XP anyway, so no need to further penalize the player, right?

When a character decides to 'knock out' a PC, it's fair enough to force a roll against SC in cases when the PC believes that any violence is potentially the end of violent action.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I certainly think that it's one reasonable way to roleplay the struggle, but certainly not the only way.
Failing to obey one of them will penalize XP anyway, so no need to further penalize the player, right?

I wouldn't penalize someone exp if one Disad managed to 'cancel out' another. They are after all, still playing to their Disads... unless one Disad was always 'cancelling out' another.

Then they'd get 'The Talk'.