How is Hidebound a disadvantage?

[Mailanka]

Quite a few templates end up with Hidebound, including quite a few alien templates if you follow the GURPS Space alien creation model, and quite a few of the monsters/races scattered throughout books (but especially some of the Horror templates I was looking at).

I like the concept of it. You're more rigid and less flexible than others. Seems reasonable. But the actual execution of it is: If you don't have any artist skills or engineering skills or gadgeteer, you'll never notice it. It's a weak anti-talent that gives you a -2 to some skills you're probably not going to take anyway. If you do take hidebound and gadgeteer or artist, then it might be worth the negative points, but if you don't, they're never an issue.

I want Hidebound to have some bite. I want it to shape more than how a character is built, but how a character plays. Good disads shape play: Bloodlust can force moral quandries, and Code of Honor can easily land you in conflicts of interest, and not just because of "how you roleplay them" but because of how their mechanics are implemented. Hidebound doesn't do that. So I don't like it.

I want this fixed. Am I missing something about Hidebounds implementation? Does anyone have some suggestions on how I can use that implementation to shape play at the table, rather than how someone builds their character? Or, barring that, any suggestions on how to change the implementation so it actually turns up in play?

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I like the concept of it. You're more rigid and less flexible than others. Seems reasonable. But the actual execution of it is: If you don't have any artist skills or engineering skills or gadgeteer, you'll never notice it...

I want Hidebound to have some bite. I want it to shape more than how a character is built, but how a character plays...

I don't think that you are going to like my initial answer because beyond the skill penalties it will mostly be a roleplaying issue.

Having said that it should have a relatively clear effect on a character especially when it is a species trait. Hidebound characters aught to display a preference for familiar tools, pre-existing tactics and small behavioural rituals.

An (non-RAW) idea I was playing around with for a hidebound alien species (the Swarmers) was to assume that the disadvantage included an element of 'stress atavism'. Essentially when placed under extreme pressure they would need to make a will roll (possibly with some form of modifier) in order to avoid falling back on ingrained behaviours.

The stock example of this would be the Swarmer warrior caste whom, at least when isolated, have to consciously avoid falling back on one size fits all tactics developed in ritualised combat environments often going as far as to attempt to engage with blades even when it is obviously suicidal to do so.

[johndallman]

The Hidebound characters I've played have been THS LAIs (allies of human PCs). For them it's been easy: they can make deductions sensibly, but they don't naturally come up with new ideas.

A "new idea" for this case would be anything that seemed like lateral thinking, or didn't follow obviously from the situation.

The way I'd play a Hidebound human would be to silently reject new ideas that I came up with while playing them. If we got utterly stuck or other players asked for original ways of coping with a problem I might grudgingly admit to a new idea, or listen to someone else's, but I'd be pretty sure it was the wrong approach.

Hidebound and Stubborn would mean I'd never admit a new idea was any good. But since I enjoy new ideas and original tactics in RPGs, I'm fairly unlikely to play such a character, except as some kind of satire.

[Dargaron]

I got the impression that Hidebound, like many other disadvantages, was more or less restrictive depending on the campaign. For instance, in an alien invasion campaign, Hidebound might mean that your character just doesn't want to use the new, shiny alien ray guns, instead sticking to earth firearms. That could put them at an immense disadvantage when it comes to penetrating high-tech armor.

Similarly, in a world with magic, a Hidebound character probably wouldn't pick it up. They'd be less hostile that the Dursleys (barring other disadvantages), but a mundane bounty hunter with Hidebound probably wouldn't pick up a broomstick or spellbook, even if they managed to sneak into Diagon Alley.

I felt that Hidebound was essentially a pact with the DM that your character's capabilities won't radically change when new options became available. An example: Tony Stark upgrades his suit a lot. But Thor would balk at trading in Mjolnir for "MjoltotallynotoverpoweredStarkTech V2" He probably wouldn't be all that interested in a set of power armor, even if it gave him a combat advantage. It would have to be a really desperate situation, or the suit would have to provide a much greater benefit than hindrance, and it would take a certain amount of time to bring a Hidebound character around to using it.

[SCAR]

Originally Posted by Frost

Having said that it should have a relatively clear effect on a character especially when it is a species trait. Hidebound characters aught to display a preference for familiar tools, pre-existing tactics and small behavioural rituals.

..

The stock example of this would be the Swarmer warrior caste whom, at least when isolated, have to consciously avoid falling back on one size fits all tactics developed in ritualised combat environments often going as far as to attempt to engage with blades even when it is obviously suicidal to do so.

This seems like the obvious starting point.

A Hidebound character is always going to try the same strategies for solving ang given problem or situation - they are predictable.

For a Hidebound race, I would thing they would become their own stereotype.
They would at least behave in a highly ritualised way in any given situation, even if the race themselves don't see their behaviours as any kind of formal rituals - 'that's just how you solve this problem!'

The Swarmer Warriors always charge into battle with blades, regardless of their opponents armament. Even after they've seen how badly that goes, they would try the same thing again next time.

[gilbertocarlos]

You prefer to stick with the trusted ways to do something, enemies have +4 on Tactics to know what you're going to do.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

You prefer to stick with the trusted ways to do something, enemies have +4 on Tactics to know what you're going to do.

You know, an IQ check for someone who knows you, or a some version of Hidden Lore check appropriate to your race, to predict what you will do might be a nice rule, especially for NPCs who have his disad.

[whswhs]

There is a rule in GURPS Social Engineering where you can use a Psychology roll to gain an advantage on a skill by figuring out another character's behavior. Hidebound seems like it could be used for this purpose: You figure out that the other character is Hidebound and you know you can influence their choices by framing them as "innovation vs. stability."

Bill Stoddard

[jacobmuller]

It can be a bit of an OPH to outsiders: Hidebound race, a backward looking bunch of primitives - how did they ever achieve civilisation?
"We've always done it that way." eg regarding a suggested change of opening hours for a 2 year old business.
"If it was good enough for my grandparents, it's good enough for" me/ my children/ grandchildren/ anyone else I can lay my hands on or influence with threats of violence or death. eg not playing on Sunday.
I often feel it's a racial trait in Ulster:P

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by whswhs

There is a rule in GURPS Social Engineering where you can use a Psychology roll to gain an advantage on a skill by figuring out another character's behavior. Hidebound seems like it could be used for this purpose: You figure out that the other character is Hidebound and you know you can influence their choices by framing them as "innovation vs. stability."

Hidebound isn't defined as disliking innovation, it just can't innovate by itself.