[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Impulsiveness

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

You played On The Edge perfectly.

Overconfident and Impulsive? I'd give it to you, but not require such over-the-top foolhardiness from others.

On the Edge requires you make AoAs, and other such foolhardiness. Overconfidence only requires that you show a lack of caution - someone who is Overconfident can plan very thoroughly, but their plan must be bold and assume that they (if not everyone else) is supremely competent. Overconfident and Impulsive, on the other hand, will very confidently do things that aren't really in their grasp without forethought (or any thought).

While Overconfidence+Impulsiveness comes out to the same -15* points as One the Edge, the effect isn't quite the same (but should be just as dangerous).

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Rupert

On the Edge requires you make AoAs, and other such foolhardiness.

Only about half the time. But yes, it's a -15 point Disad, easily as deadly for the PC as Berserk.

Overconfidence only requires that you show a lack of caution....

Not quite... it requires you not "show an unreasonable degree of caution."

An Overconfident PC can be cautious, they know they aren't invincible. They're just supremely confident of their abilities. They know for instance that they can't flip over a car with their bare hands, etc.

And in Brandy's example, I wouldn't have required the PC to face four Orcs alone, unless previous encounters had shown Orcs to be particularly incompetent.

Square off with two Orcs alone? Sure, probably. One on one? Definitely.

- someone who is Overconfident can plan very thoroughly, but their plan must be bold...

Why must it be 'bold'? I'd allow Overconfident leaders to make sneak attack plans. To target enemies where they are weak. Not all of them need to be mindlessly screaming "HEY DIDDLE-DIDDLE!" as the charge down the middle.

While Overconfidence+Impulsiveness comes out to the same -15* points as One the Edge, the effect isn't quite the same (but should be just as dangerous).

I disagree. I do not compound Disads based on "Curious, Bad Rep -1, and No Smell or Taste all add up to -15, so expect to die as fast as Mr Berserker over there..."

I treat Disads individually... now I'll grant you that Impulsive and Overconfident can be a potent mix, but they're a far cry from Terminally Ill Berserk or On The Edge.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Why must it be 'bold'? I'd allow Overconfident leaders to make sneak attack plans. To target enemies where they are weak. Not all of them need to be mindlessly screaming "HEY DIDDLE-DIDDLE!" as the charge down the middle.

'Bold' doesn't mean 'frontal' or 'headlong'. It means high-risk, hopefully for high-reward. It means things like not holding a reserve.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Rupert

'Bold' doesn't mean 'frontal' or 'headlong'. It means high-risk, hopefully for high-reward. It means things like not holding a reserve.

Please point out where in the description of Overconfident it requires "high risk".

That's my point, "boldness" is not a requirement.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Please point out where in the description of Overconfident it requires "high risk".

That's my point, "boldness" is not a requirement.

B148:

You must make a self-control roll any time the GM feels you show an unreasonable degree of caution. If you fail, you must go ahead as though you
were able to handle the situation! Caution is not an option.

The game notes that generally you should not be attempting self-control rolls, and that means in this case that you should be playing your Overconfident character as not being cautious. Why would someone who is supremely competent and generally awesome need caution?

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Rupert

The game notes that generally you should not be attempting self-control rolls, and that means in this case that you should be playing your Overconfident character as not being cautious.

There is a vastness between "unreasonable caution" and "boldness".

Overconfident doesn't demand you take risks, it demands you treat the situation as though you are completely confident of your ability to handle it, but even then it isn't On the Edge.

Faced with a machine gun nest and no cover, On The Edge says "Charge it soldier!". Overconfident says "You can handle this, come up with a plan and the plan will succeed!" But that plan could be "split up, spread wide and everyone charge the nest. We might lose someone, but we'll clear it", or even "That nest is unassailable, we'll retreat back down around those dunes over there and come around on it from a different angle".

[capnq]

I've had kind of the opposite experience. I tried to play an Impulsive character once, and had a very hard time thinking of things for him to do. The only memorable one was jumping off a boat to try and rescue a treasure chest that had been thrown overboard. (He failed to find it on the harbor bottom.)

I'm too much the cautious planner to play Impulsiveness well.

[Maz]

In my current game ALL of the four PC's have Impulsive. And I wanted to run a horror/investigation game... Any investigation quickly turn into "action" because the PC's just rush towards NPCs and try to force something to happen... which, if the NPC isn't cooperative, turns into action (chases or combat most often).

I mean. It's fun and all. I just wished sometimes I could build a proper murder mystery were at least one or two of the PC's would care to follow the leads I put out instead of being so... impulsive. XD

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Faced with a machine gun nest and no cover, On The Edge says "Charge it soldier!". Overconfident says "You can handle this, come up with a plan and the plan will succeed!" But that plan could be "split up, spread wide and everyone charge the nest. We might lose someone, but we'll clear it", or even "That nest is unassailable, we'll retreat back down around those dunes over there and come around on it from a different angle".

Neither of those options are particularly cautious. One is just a variation of "Charge!", and the other works on the assumption that you can take the position from that other angle. Both are bold plans. Being cautious in such a situation is sitting tight, holding the position under observation and fire, and calling in artillery/air support, or waiting for your larger parent unit to come up so the position can be taken with raw force.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

You played On The Edge perfectly.

Maybe.

To my mind, OTE has a bit more self-hatred and conscious death-wish aspect to it. After all, it first appeared in GURPS 3E Cyberpunk several decades ago, back when that was an actual genre of RPG.

With OTE, you go out of your way to court death, doing dumb crap like turning cartwheel while balanced on the edges of tall buildings, traffic surfing on the hoods of speeding cars, and insulting entire biker gangs while armed with nothing but a broken vodka bottle because, "F*** it, chummer, whatya gotta lose as compared ta livin'?"

Overconfidence means that you never, ever look at your skill level or skill modifiers and certainly never think to compare your relative skill to your opponent or the task at hand. You have utter faith in your abilities. Death or injury is something that happens to other people, not you! You cheerfully volunteer for suicide missions because you believe that you're guy who's going beat the odds and make it back.

Impulsiveness is act first, think later. Like a dog that somehow chases a raccoon up a tree, never thinking for a moment how it's going to get down from the tree, or what it's going to do with a cornered, angry raccoon sharing the same branch with it.