[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Delusions

[ajardoor]

Originally Posted by dcarson

I had a player in a campaign I was running take the Delusion that squirrels were plotting against people. I had without knowing he was going to take this made the first arc in the campaign (a magic returns modern day) be that a reincarnated druid was using squirrels to help him steal a artifact for the small museum on campus. Made things amusing.

Yeah, I saw that episode of Rick and Morty too. Funny bit.

[Otaku]

Oh! I forgot to ask about whether or not "You can be right but still be crazy" is a requirement or just an option.

Originally Posted by johndallman

As I understand it, yes.

Sadly, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all rule for this. It depends on what the Delusion is, and how severe it is. How the character fells about it is as important as how the rest of the game world feels.

Please pardon my failure to understand, but why does how the character feels about it as important as how the rest of the game world feels? The character who had the Delusion was already behaving as if the Delusion was true; what does (additional?) confirmation change?

For most of it, it seems like the Delusion would change, but it would simply become a different Disadvantage worth (roughly) the same CP if the amount of people who think the "true Delusion" is a "regular Delusion" hasn't changed enough to warrant changing the cost it would have if a new character suddenly showed up with it. If the Delusion being found to be true involved something worth rewarding, any CP difference in favor of the PC in question might be worth writing off as that player's reward for the session.

Crunching the numbers for what a Delusion that is now a weird combination of an Odious Personal Habit, Reputation, etc. might be the RAW approach, but I'm wondering if it might be better for there to just be a Modifier that handles this. Probably "Variable", fluctuating based on the number of PC's and NPC's who are also aware of "the truth".

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Oh! I forgot to ask about whether or not "You can be right but still be crazy" is a requirement or just an option.

I think it's an option, but it's more likely to apply for higher disadvantage values.

Please pardon my failure to understand, but why does how the character feels about it as important as how the rest of the game world feels? The character who had the Delusion was already behaving as if the Delusion was true; what does (additional?) confirmation change?

It's important for deducing and/or simply deciding how the character's behaviour changes. To do this plausibly, you have to understand the character's feelings in some depth, IMHO.

For most of it, it seems like the Delusion would change, but it would simply become a different Disadvantage worth (roughly) the same CP if the amount of people who think the "true Delusion" is a "regular Delusion" hasn't changed enough to warrant changing the cost it would have if a new character suddenly showed up with it.

That's a plausible way of doing it.

If the Delusion being found to be true involved something worth rewarding, any CP difference in favor of the PC in question might be worth writing off as that player's reward for the session.

That's also plausible.

Crunching the numbers for what a Delusion that is now a weird combination of an Odious Personal Habit, Reputation, etc. might be the RAW approach,

I'm not claiming the RAW always requires this. The RAW is a bit vague. This is reasonable: the psychology of imaginary characters whom players identify strongly with is likely to have features that can't be anticipated by rules authors.

but I'm wondering if it might be better for there to just be a Modifier that handles this. Probably "Variable", fluctuating based on the number of PC's and NPC's who are also aware of "the truth".

Truth of their beliefs isn't an especially important factor in deciding if someone is crazy or not.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The only delusion I’ve ever played was in the Weird War II campaign, “This war still has trench fronts” [-5]. That wasn’t crazy at the start of the war, and it was possible to rationalise the departures from it for quite a while, but I eventually had to buy it off.

This is a useful example, actually. It's a belief that was simply wrong, rather than irrational. Holding it at the start of WWII was reasonable enough for someone whose WWI experience was brief, had entirely been earned in the trenches of the Western Front, and who'd had no contact with the military from 1919 to 1939.

Rationalising the exceptions was entertaining for the player, and let the character maintain his original beliefs for a while. But as the character gained military knowledge, it became clear that the belief was wrong. Entrenchments were still part of war, but WWI trench fronts had been a response to particular circumstances, which didn't apply any more. Further, all sides in WWII wanted to avoid their reappearance, because of their appalling consumption of soldiers.

Maintaining the delusion at that point would have required increasing its value and becoming somewhat crazy. Since the character's personal story arc wasn't compatible with that, buying off the delusion was the right thing to do.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Delusion differs in this regard from Compulsive Behavior or Odious Personal Habit in that both CB and OPH represent one set, rigid behavioral problem that is either time consuming or obnoxious, whereas Delusion can spawn a fluid and shifting complex of bad choices that are obnoxious or counter-productive (which could include time consuming stuff).

That said, when I'm designing a character I often try sliding ideas between CB, OPH and Delusion to see where they fit best.

Originally Posted by Otaku

Delusions are ultimately about a combination of reaction penalty and/or counterproductive behaviors undertaking due to believing something that is simply is not, correct?

I'd replace that last word with "generally accepted by society". If my character believes there is secretly magic in the world, and goes around trying to convince people of this, spends all his money on "defensive" crystals, and so on, then clearly if there isn't secret magic that's a Delusion… but if there is, and society in general doesn't believe it, then I think I'd probably still model that as a Delusion. (Plus perhaps an Enemy, for when he rants to one of the people who actually know the truth.) The name is less appropriate, but it's still the combination of having a weird idea and having to tell people about it and act on it.

I have a bunch of weird ideas but they don't particularly control my life, so I don't get Delusion points for them. :)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

I have a bunch of weird ideas but they don't particularly control my life, so I don't get Delusion points for them.

In GURPS social terms I very likely have a Delusion: adherence to libertarian economics. But it's likely at a quirk level. It could be at a 5-point level if I were actively involved in investing money, instead of leaving my assets in mutual funds. (Of course, back in the early 2000s it led me to believe that housing prices were insanely inflated and likely to crash, so it might have been "true," or true enough to keep me from buying real property during the bubble. But since I never felt seriously interested in homeownership, the issue was academic and worth fewer points.)

Now, arguing libertarian economics with people can be an Odious Personal Habit. How much of one depends on how often you do it. I hope mine isn't worse than quirk level; I don't do it with professional contacts, for example. It might be part of a more general quirk, Pedantry, or even quirk-level Fanaticism.

[Flyndaran]

I tend to think of Gurps Delusion as just a negative reaction disadvantage based on a locally unpopular belief.
Light atheism in a hyper-religious setting, or light religiousness in a hyper-atheist setting could count. You're "nuts" regardless of how self-destructively you act.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I tend to think of Gurps Delusion as just a negative reaction disadvantage based on a locally unpopular belief.
Light atheism in a hyper-religious setting, or light religiousness in a hyper-atheist setting could count. You're "nuts" regardless of how self-destructively you act.

That at least works for the 5-point version. To get as far as the 15-point version I think you need either a profoundly totalitarian culture or a major class with reality.

[David Johnston2]

There is of course another category of delusion. If you had a false belief that was entirely in line with the beliefs of the surrounding culture, but which you would adhere inflexibly without any ability to revise it based on evidence, even when a failure to do so could have, a belief like "There's no such thing as monsters" or "Women who are virtuous and modestly dressed need have no fear of assault" there will be no negative reactions from most people...but of course if you take such a delusion you will encounter evidence to the countrary and you will respond irrationally.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by whswhs

In GURPS social terms I very likely have a Delusion: adherence to libertarian economics. But it's likely at a quirk level. It could be at a 5-point level if I were actively involved in investing money, instead of leaving my assets in mutual funds. (Of course, back in the early 2000s it led me to believe that housing prices were insanely inflated and likely to crash, so it might have been "true," or true enough to keep me from buying real property during the bubble. But since I never felt seriously interested in homeownership, the issue was academic and worth fewer points.)

Now, arguing libertarian economics with people can be an Odious Personal Habit. How much of one depends on how often you do it. I hope mine isn't worse than quirk level; I don't do it with professional contacts, for example. It might be part of a more general quirk, Pedantry, or even quirk-level Fanaticism.

It depends on what type of person you deal with. I long thought that the only thing I am good at is being an intellectual so if I can't take temporary hurt feelings in stride I am a poor person. I don't always live up to that of course, and I have met people who do find argument offensive too. However I sometimes suspect I am rather an odd sort anyway. A lot of what would count as temporary annoyance to each other would perhaps count as OPH.