Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-28-2022, 11:33 AM   #1
Bathawk
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

Hello

Most Mental Disadvantages have a modifiable cost based on how hard it is to resist...a kleptomaniac who rolls to see if he can avoid stealing the silverware at the Senator's party, Or the Indecisive character trying to decide between the blue door or the red door as the Orcs close in

But what about Disadvantages that can't be resisted? Like the android who MUST remain truthful even if it means his friends will be lead into a trap, or the avatar of the goddess of slaughter, who must slay her enemies no matter what (bloodlust) as it is tied to her nature?

Likewise what about physical disadvantages that are no absolute? Much rarer, but for example, the paraplegic whos condition is psychosomatic and can be temporarily ignored with an act of will.....or a certain fictional lawyer who believed he was allergic to electricity (weakness)
Bathawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2022, 11:47 AM   #2
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

The difference between a 6- resistance roll and not being able to roll at all, is too tiny to be worth points. It becomes a Feature. "Physical" disadvantages that stop applying under certain conditions (like not knowing your psychosomatic trigger is present) have a Mitigator.
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2022, 12:13 PM   #3
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

A self-control number of "N/A" (always on and you can never roll to resist) multiplies a disadvantage's base value by 2.5. This is spelled out in several places, among them GURPS Zombies, p. 60, but also in Fourth Edition content for Transhuman Space. It comes with the caution that the disadvantage must be one where indefinite duration makes sense; e.g., you can't be Berserk all the time because fights never last that long, and if you're alive, any disadvantage that drains FP would kill you, making the point cost irrelevant because you'd be dead.

Going the other way, this suggests multiplying the cost of an irresistible disadvantage by 0.8 for 6 or less, 0.6 for 9 or less, 0.4 for 12 or less, or 0.2 for 15 or less. Once again, you'd want to be on the lookout for things that make no sense. However, I see no reason why psychological problems couldn't work this way.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2022, 09:51 PM   #4
Pursuivant
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

It's not that hard to extrapolate divisors for Self-Control numbers other than 6, 9, 12, or 15.

Once you do that, just set the trait's Self-Control number to match its "governing attribute" (e.g., HT or Will).

The differences between an arbitrary Self-Control number and having to roll against a specific trait are minor enough that they can be ignored.
Pursuivant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2022, 07:12 PM   #5
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
the disadvantage must be one where indefinite duration makes sense; e.g., you can't be Berserk all the time because fights never last that long
I thought zombies could have indefinite berserk though - doesn't that just mean they can't make a self-control roll to break out of it prematurely, but it could still end because they fall unconscious or run out of targets?
__________________
what this forum is
(17 March 2020 forum rules from Hackard)
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2022, 08:20 AM   #6
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post

I thought zombies could have indefinite berserk though - doesn't that just mean they can't make a self-control roll to break out of it prematurely, but it could still end because they fall unconscious or run out of targets?
It'll never end if it permits no self-control roll. The only way for Berserk to end is to succeed at a self-control roll after either downing a foe or running out of foes. Even at 6, this is seriously troublesome – you can roam around berserk, looking for more people to attack, for quite some time.

If you think that makes sense for zombies, go ahead! GURPS Zombies recommends not doing that, mostly because it has weird implications for a zombie staying in "combat time" permanently and starting all fights with limited tactical options . . . but also because that isn't especially disadvantageous for a zombie, so it amounts to getting -25 points for permanent immunity to stun, shock, and reduced Move, and +4 to key HT rolls. If your zombie is supposed to be permanently enraged, Bad Temper (N/A) is the canonical recommendation. You can have Berserk with this, meaning that you'll roll for Berserk whenever someone shows up to be the subject of Bad Temper, but Berserk will eventually end, even if Bad Temper does not.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2022, 12:00 PM   #7
ravenfish
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

While we're on the subject of disadvantage costs, what's a fair value for going from going from a Mental Disadvantage with a Self-Control Roll to a Self-Imposed Mental Disadvantage (or vice-versa)? So, if Charitable (for example) were not a sort of mental compulsion but instead a principle you consciously choose to base your life around. The game effect, as far as I could tell, would be that, when following the disadvantage would lead to trouble, you don't have a chance at a self-control roll, but if the consequences would be extremely bad, you can always chose to violate your principals and earn fewer character points that session (so it isn't quite as bad as the automatic self-control failure discussed here). What would a fair cost be?
__________________
I predicted GURPS:Dungeon Fantasy several hours before it came out and all I got was this lousy sig.
ravenfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2022, 12:27 PM   #8
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

A quirk. Responsive, specifically.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2022, 04:32 PM   #9
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

Another thing I was wondering ... if you had Bad Temper (Always succumb) and succumbing to Bad Temper triggers berserk, should that give fewer points for taking Berserk (always succumb) ?

B124's trigger of a self control roll is "any stressful situation" so I guess someone w/ the 2.5 multiplier for Bad Temper wouldn't necessarily "insult,
attack, or otherwise act against the cause of the stress" in non-stressful situations?

Of course I'm not sure how we draw the line on what is or isn't stressful since stress can come in varying degrees...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
The only way for Berserk to end is to succeed at a self-control roll after either downing a foe or running out of foes. Even at 6, this is seriously troublesome – you can roam around berserk, looking for more people to attack, for quite some time.
Guess I had assumed that if you fell unconscious (B124 you get a +4 to remain conscious) it might end. I guess it doesn't explicitly state that though, so this means if a Berserker falls unconscious they are still considered to be in a berserk state when they regain consciousness and need to make the roll then?

There is also a "Vicious" variant (Z57) where the frenzy automatically ends when losing sight of enemies (doesn't seem to require self control roll?) although in this case it seems to re-initiate when seeing any non-allies. In this case I guess sensing non-allies by other means (hearing them?) might be tolerable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
If you think that makes sense for zombies, go ahead! GURPS Zombies recommends not doing that, mostly because it has weird implications for a zombie staying in "combat time" permanently and starting all fights with limited tactical options
I think I had misremembered Z60 which was actually talking about giving "Always" for the Bloodlust disadvantage.

I guess the usual distinction between Bloodlust and Berserk is that Berserk only obligates you to "down" a foe (you can attempt a self control roll when they suffer knockdown into a prone posture, presumably?) whereas Bloodlust obligates you to try to kill them.

It seems like the lines between Bloodlust and Berserk would get blurred if either of them became 'always' though.
1) if you always fail the Berserk self-control roll then your foe being down is irrelevant - you'll keep attacking them unless perhaps a 2nd foe who is standing seems like a priority

2) if you always fail the Bloodlust self-control roll (B125) then any time you are in a battle you automatically try to kill so the only way to avoid Bloodlust is to avoid battle to begin with (the only effect of Bloodlust out of combat appears to be "you never forget that a foe is a foe" ... do people normally forget this?)
The line gets especially blurry with Vicious-Berserk since you will always enter combat when you see a foe - ergo you will always be in a position where Bloodlust self-control rolls get triggered.

So with Vicious (always succumbs) you will always attack an enemy and never stop attacking them (not even when they are downed) which seems like it makes you de-facto Bloodlust (non-stop attacking eventually kills a foe) ?

One instinction might be though that a vicious berserker might be able to switch targets (ignore the downed foe in favor of the standing foe, so long as the standing foe can be immediately attacked that second) whereas someone succumbed to bloodlust can't use a 2nd foe as a means of ignoring their downed foe (Z60 "never moves to a new victim until it has killed its current one")

The only distinction I can think of with an always-Vicious non-Bloodlust is that a vicious berserker isn't obligated to go for KILLING blows, so in theory if you wanted to avoid killing an enemy as a Berserker I guess you could channel your endless rage with non-lethal attacks like constantly kicking them in the foot, since there's an optional rule which limits how much HP someone can lose from attacks targeting extremities (but you can still do stuff like cause them pain)

- -

Also it occurs to me that Berserk doesn't actually obligate going for -damaging- attacks - I think a Berserk is technically able to make their 'attack' a grapple or something like MA119's "inflicting pain with locks" ?

If a berserker is opting to just cause afflictions (moderate, severe or terrible pain) instead of FP or HP loss then that's something a target might survive indefinitely (B428 only Agony is potentially lethal since it can cause FP loss)

In which case it seems like Bloodlust is what prevents this condition - a vicious zombie berserker might just want to use his DX to choke you for pain (instead of chioking for HP or FP) can't opt to choke you for pain if under the effect of bloodlust, because then it must try to do something to kill you, which is probably choking for HP most directly.

I could see maybe allowing Bloodlust-succumbed people to grapple for FP damage if it seemed like a more reliable way to kill someone though, like if they had low FP and high HP and knocking them unconscious would then let you switch to HP-inflicting attacks undefended?

One might even see grappling for pain as doing that in even rarer circumstances, like if the IQ penalty caused by pain somehow made them more vulnerable. I could only see that in something like they have uber-Regeneration (10/second) limited with "requires IQ roll" where you couldn't damage them faster than they regenerate, but by knocking out their IQ-based healing could then kill them.

It's hard to think of a berserk bloodlust being that tactical though - that's something I'd imagine only a non-berserked bloodlust who has investigated their opponent heavily might pull off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
permanent immunity to stun, shock, and reduced Move
I had forgotten about the "your injuries cause no penalty to your Move score" part.

Do you know if that is only meant to apply to B327's halved move below 1/3 HP or would it also apply to B328's halved move below 1/3 FP ? I'm not always clear on whether FP depletion counts as "injury" or not, what with "Fatigue Attack" having basic/penetrating damage and so on.

Guessing other ways of reducing move could still apply if they're not based on a loss of points though.

Plus some zombies might have 'No Fatigue' in which case it wouldn't matter if Berserk gave an immunity to low-FP move-halving.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
If your zombie is supposed to be permanently enraged, Bad Temper (N/A) is the canonical recommendation. You can have Berserk with this, meaning that you'll roll for Berserk whenever someone shows up to be the subject of Bad Temper, but Berserk will eventually end, even if Bad Temper does not.
The wording on B124 sounds like Bad Temper ends every time you lose your temper (fail the roll, whether that's automatic or dice fail) and act against a stress cause.

At that point it seems like you would need to re-evaluate whether the cause of stress, as a result of your actions, is still causing you stress.

IE "I'm stressed because this guy insulted my horse" might no longer apply if as a result of Bad Temper you lashed out with Rapier Wit and stunned/humiliated the horse-insulter and gained satisfaction.

It seems to boil down to what actually stresses someone out though?

Would a zombie necessarily be stressed out by humans just being around? It seems like you'd actually need some kind of "stress trigger".

In the case of zombies 'stress' might be as simple as "I am stressed because I am hungry and my belly is empty" in which case any potential food is a stress trigger "that burger is stressing me out by not being in my belly" in which case you would be obligated to lash out at the burger (or brains, if that's what one eats) until it ceases to be a stress trigger because the zombie is no longer hungry?

I don't know how to deal with "how hungry do you need to be before hunger stresses you" in normal situations. My best guess would be B426's Starvation rules?

Missing a meal makes you lose 1 FP therefore one could posit that being "damaged" (losing HP or FP) is stressful. So it seems like a zombie who isn't behind on his average three-brains-a-day dietary requirements (and who is neither gluttonous or UA) shouldn't feel stressed by there being an available walking brain (human) in their presence, and not have a Bad Temper triggered.

Not sure if (or how )Gluttony (B137) or Uncontrollable Appetite (B159) would play into this. Failing those rolls shouldn't really be stressful (it results in you giving into your addiction) but PASSING your self-control checks might leave someone more stressed by FP-depleting hunger.
__________________
what this forum is
(17 March 2020 forum rules from Hackard)
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2022, 04:35 PM   #10
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: "Absolute" Mental Disadvantages

Other stress triggers might be something like "I am missing FP from Missed Sleep" in which case if a zombie is trying to sleep (maybe standing up? is that a perk so long as you're not a Sleepwalker?) then anyone who keeps them awake would be a source of stress too - thus triggering their Bad Temper.

That in theory might be anything you notice while FP is depleted. Not sure how this would work for "No Fatigue" zombies though since they have no FP to lose from their sleep. I guess maybe if you're missing enough fatigue to suffer penalties it should count as a source of stress too?

I could see that approach for grappling also. Even though you can be grappled (suffer penalties) without having lost FP or HP, being grappled is generally a stressful experience. This is even easier to understand with the Control Point system (pseudo-damage) used in Technical Grappling.

More broadly though it seems like "anything causing penalties for me is a source of stress" therefore if you perceive something to be penalty-causing, that thing should trigger a Bad Temper roll.

IE "my alarm clock woke me up, I am still tired, if I fail my Bad Temper roll I will lash out at that alarm clock until it stops stressing me out!"

- -

For zombies lacking hunger (the usual or the two disadvantages with control rolls) as a stress trigger to have stress trigger their Bad Temper seems like you would rely on something else as a stress trigger.

I could see Confused (B129) serving well in that role. That prompts self-control rolls "when there is commotion going on". Failing that (you get stunned) is presumably a stressful situation - which means the source of your stress would be the commotion that confused you. Although it's a little unclear how one would snap out of a Confused state if not directly attacked... it doesn't sound like you get IQ rolls to snap out of confusion like you would an average Mental Stun.

Barring this disadvantage it would probably also qualify as a 'stressful situation' if one suffered Total Surprise (maybe even Partial Surprise) per B393. It sounds like Confusion just broadens the amount of situations which would qualify as these things?

Indecisive (B140) seems like it could serve a similar roll for zombies - if you fail an Indecisive roll and are forced to Do Nothing that's probably stressful.

It's hard to tell if zombies would have this though... failing Indecisive stuns you for an entire MINUTE in non-combat situations.

I could understand a zombie being briefly confused if it had the option of eating twelve different brains on a table ('which brain do I grab') but not necessarily for an entire minute... This is reduced to 1 second in a 'combat situation' but "brains passively lying on a table" can't really be seen as combat...

- -

Another source of stress might just be using Reaction Rolls. Like if zombies roll a reaction on seeing you, if it's a negative action you could posit the zombie feels stressed by your presence, and then this triggers Bad Temper?

- -

If you don't want confused zombies (though that seems like a good way to emulate their slow responses) then another stress trigger could be a failed Fright Check - although I don't imagine fright checks are on the table for a lot of zombies, and "a human walked by me" isn't necessarily enough to prompt a fright check - though maybe if the human is armed that could do it? Assuming a zombie is even high-IQ enough to understand what a weapon is...

It sounds like if you are stressed by a failed Fright Check that having a mental disadvantage combo like Bad Temper (stress makes you angry) and Berserk (anger makes you immune to fear and mental stun) would immediately snap you ought of the ramifications of a failed fright check? In this way taking stuff like Fearfulness would actually make it easier to go Berserk but also prompt you to enter into more conflicts. A fearful zombie might be afraid of a small child and thus more likely to attack him, whereas a Fearless zombie wouldn't be afraid of all but the scariest humans and ignore most of them?

This of course wouldn't be an option for zombies who are immune to fright checks via Unfazeable - they never have fear (or Phobia) as a stress to trigger a Bad Temper so they would need something else.

Not sure if the Dislike quirk (B164) derived from Phobia would be available for those who have Unfazeable to serve this role? Ironically though this would shift 'avoid it whenever possible' to 'destroy it whenever possible' since it would trigger the Dislike>Stress>Temper>Berserk>Bloodlust chain-of-effect

I know I definitely have at least quirk-level dislike for many types of sound, for example (misophonia) even if it doesn't reach fear-levels (phonopobia) so if zombies were similar and had a stress response from it, a Bad Temper could transform that mere aversion into rage.

This all has me wondering what would actually motivate a zombie when no "Disliked Human" is actually present. What motivates some zombies to actively wander around to a random location where a human might be sensed?

In some media you have zombies just hang around doing nothing (I think these were termed "Lurkers" in The Walking Dead) compared to those who stumbled around (which I think were termed "Roamers") which also resembles how some zombies go into a "Dormant" state in Palladium's Dead Reign (stay immobile unti sensing something)

Then of course you have zombies who shift into herd behavior and follow a herd even if they might lack initiative to walk somewhere on their own. This has me thinking of that China phenom of a herd of sheep walking in a circle for 12 days... https://nypost.com/2022/11/17/sheep-...ight-in-china/ which is the type of thing I could see zombies possibly doing too via their herde/follower mentality.

- -

Intolerance (B140) could be useful here, since you react at -3 to those who are different, which plays into my bringing up Reaction Roll previously. B560 sounds like neutral and above would not be stressful. I'm not sure about Poor... "may become hostile if there is much profit in it" doesn't sound like someone stressed out.

Even with Bad ("acts against them if he can profit by doing so") doesn't sound stressful either. Only in a potential combat situation ("attack unless outnumbered") does that seem appropriate, although I'm not sure how a Zombie evaluates when adjacent humans shift from "General reaction" to "potential combat situation". Isn't EVERY situation a potential combat situation? Maybe that could be rephrased?

Bad is merely "cares nothing for" which isn't stressful (I care nothing for pebbles, pebbles don't stress me). But Very Bad ("dislikes") and Disastrous ("hates") sound like -stressful- reactions, because I think it's stressful to actively dislike or hate something or someone.

I would imagine where you actually make a Self Control roll for a Bad Temper that it should be harder to resist if the source of your stress is gave you a Disastrous reaction compared to if it was merely Very Bad reaction. I don't know where that would matter if you automatically failed Bad Temper rolls though.

Maybe it could be something like Disastrous reactions are always stressful, while mere Very Bad reactions are only stressful if you fail a 2nd roll like an IQ check? Getting stressed by something you merely dislike (rather than hate) would be exhausting - like imagine getting stressed out by brussel sprouts just because you dislike the taste.

Of course this distinction would be small in zombies (as they tend to have low IQs) and wouldn't largely matter, just lead to occasional situations where they won't get stressed>angry on a Bad reaction roll to a human they are Intolerant to.
__________________
what this forum is
(17 March 2020 forum rules from Hackard)
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.