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 08-09-2010, 01:27 PM   #21
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery View Post

Kromm's reply notwithstanding, I am generally against allowing conflicting disadvantages, because of the necessary condition that, in the case of conflict, at least one of the disadvantages will end up not being roleplayed properly.
If you read my rule, you'll see that all the disads get roleplayed properly. One gets roleplayed in the PC's immediate action and then the other gets roleplayed in the psychological (or, rarely, physical) aftermath. I didn't say, "One wins; ignore the other." I said, "One wins and affects the PC's actions now, and then the other kicks in and gives him hell for ignoring it." I'm pretty sure that this – and being effectively Confused on a tie – more than justifies points in both disads. Personally, I find things like Alcoholism, Honesty, and Pacifism more interesting when the PC pushes past them and then suffers the consequences than when the PC simply gives in every time.
__________________
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 08-09-2010, 03:23 PM   #22
Kelly Pedersen
 
Kelly Pedersen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
I'm pretty sure that this – and being effectively Confused on a tie – more than justifies points in both disads.
Out of curiosity, what's your feeling on disads like Sense of Duty, where various categories can be expressed as sub-categories of a larger disadvantage? Would you allow someone to have Sense of Duty (Family) and Sense of Duty (Army Buddies), or would it be better to simply have a single Sense of Duty (Army Buddies and Family), priced as a larger category size?
I've always preferred the latter, since it seems to me that the potential for conflict between members of a Sense of Duty group is already inherrent to any Sense of Duty larger than a single person.
Kelly Pedersen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 03:43 PM   #23
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
If you read my rule, you'll see that all the disads get roleplayed properly. One gets roleplayed in the PC's immediate action and then the other gets roleplayed in the psychological (or, rarely, physical) aftermath. I didn't say, "One wins; ignore the other." I said, "One wins and affects the PC's actions now, and then the other kicks in and gives him hell for ignoring it." I'm pretty sure that this – and being effectively Confused on a tie – more than justifies points in both disads. Personally, I find things like Alcoholism, Honesty, and Pacifism more interesting when the PC pushes past them and then suffers the consequences than when the PC simply gives in every time.
A lot of disadvantages, even most, don't indicate 'bad stuff' for failing to follow them (because there's normally no option to do so). Is there any general rule to follow in assigning consequences if one of those loses out, or is this just a 'be creative, GM' situation?
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 04:12 PM   #24
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post

A lot of disadvantages, even most, don't indicate 'bad stuff' for failing to follow them (because there's normally no option to do so). Is there any general rule to follow in assigning consequences if one of those loses out, or is this just a 'be creative, GM' situation?
I've always found it useful to use the existing examples as guidelines:
Addiction: Bypassing the disadvantage leads to temporary mental disads. The concept of mounting temporary psychiatric problems is adaptable to many mental disadvantages.

Compulsive Behavior: Bypassing the disadvantage leads to Bad Temper with the same self-control roll. Use sparingly, of course, but many gamers find "base" problems like being ill-tempered easier to roleplay than "complex" ones.

Disciplines of Faith: Bypassing the disadvantage ends your supernatural powers! This is all the enforcement you need if the disadvantage is used to justify a discount for a power modifier.

Honesty: Bypassing the disadvantage leads to an enforced roll to avoid doing something bad. Again, use sparingly . . . but "Since you ignored X, Y hits you even harder" is in a way among the most interesting of effects.

Pacifism (Cannot Kill): Bypassing the disadvantage leads to an enforced period of uselessness. This isn't all that conducive to fun gaming, but if the player is really ignoring the trait, just saying "You're morose and at -X" until he starts roleplaying it works.

Phobias: Bypassing the disadvantage still leaves you with a penalty. In a way, it's very similar to what I suggested for Pacifism (Cannot Kill), but with a self-control roll in place of an active choice.

Sense of Duty: Bypassing the disadvantage lets the GM overrule your actions. Really, really clunky, but sometimes the best bet for stubborn players.

Trickster: Bypassing the disadvantage makes it progressively harder to do so again, until eventually you must give in. This is perhaps the easiest model to generalize, and arguably could've been a blanket rule for self-control rolls.
You could alternate as suits the situation. Of course, some disadvantages give you no option to bypass them – you just get a penalty, go nuts, or whatever. You could always rule that all traits work like that to some extent.
__________________
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 08-10-2010, 10:52 AM   #25
Not another shrubbery
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
If you read my rule, you'll see that all the disads get roleplayed properly. One gets roleplayed in the PC's immediate action and then the other gets roleplayed in the psychological (or, rarely, physical) aftermath. I didn't say, "One wins; ignore the other." I said, "One wins and affects the PC's actions now, and then the other kicks in and gives him hell for ignoring it." I'm pretty sure that this – and being effectively Confused on a tie – more than justifies points in both disads. Personally, I find things like Alcoholism, Honesty, and Pacifism more interesting when the PC pushes past them and then suffers the consequences than when the PC simply gives in every time.
We really could have used your input in that 'Sense of duty' thread I referenced earlier :)

I was not taking issue with your rule, which looks like a reasonable way to handle conflicts that might naturally come up. I feel that it is easier to just not allow disads that you know are going to conflict, as it will require a certain interpretation of events and their order along with careful attention on the part of the player and GM, suggestive of extra work that I would rather avoid. The traits are being roleplayed, but sequentially, rather than as immediately reactive... that is a bit nettlesome to me, especially if it will come up repeatedly.

In retrospect "necessary condition" looks overstated. Sorry :]
Not another shrubbery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 11:33 AM   #26
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery View Post

I feel that it is easier to just not allow disads that you know are going to conflict
Different strokes, I guess.

First, I like this flavor of conflict – I find roleplaying more fun if PCs are complex, and can count on themselves less often than they can count on their allies at times! For example, Bad Temper + Pacifism (Self-Defense Only) is cool because it adds depth: you see noncombative venting of temper like social cutting, or injuring oneself by punching a wall instead of an enemy, when Pacifism trumps Bad Temper – and you get episodes of guilt when Bad Temper trumps Pacifism. Whereas forcing Bad Temper guy to pick something like Fanaticism instead of Pacifism, or requiring Pacifism guy to choose a trait like Honesty instead of Bad Temper, results in too much of a muchness. You get psychos and milquetoasts too often for my liking, and far too few heroes who seem human and conflicted.

Second, I don't require (or see the rules requiring!) all disadvantages to be in effect at all times. The way I see it, if Catfall only saves the PC's bacon once in a long adventure, because falls off high places really aren't very common, or if an Ally can simply not show up, then Bad Temper should really only fry the PC's bacon once in a long adventure, and Pacifism might not even come up. To me, disads are "hooks" that I can elect to use (or abuse) as the GM. If they're always on, and all on at once, they lead to annoyingly "emo" characters who can't just clear their mind and act.

It's all about striking a balance between what I call "good conflict" (internal dialog that leads to interesting character choice) and "bad conflict" (dealing with all kinds of hangups all the time). Overall, I find letting PCs have mildly conflicting problems that might crop up at once helps find this balance.
__________________
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 08-11-2010, 10:40 AM   #27
Not another shrubbery
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
Different strokes, I guess.

First, I like this flavor of conflict – I find roleplaying more fun if PCs are complex, and can count on themselves less often than they can count on their allies at times! For example, Bad Temper + Pacifism (Self-Defense Only) is cool because it adds depth: you see noncombative venting of temper like social cutting, or injuring oneself by punching a wall instead of an enemy, when Pacifism trumps Bad Temper – and you get episodes of guilt when Bad Temper trumps Pacifism. Whereas forcing Bad Temper guy to pick something like Fanaticism instead of Pacifism, or requiring Pacifism guy to choose a trait like Honesty instead of Bad Temper, results in too much of a muchness. You get psychos and milquetoasts too often for my liking, and far too few heroes who seem human and conflicted.

Second, I don't require (or see the rules requiring!) all disadvantages to be in effect at all times. The way I see it, if Catfall only saves the PC's bacon once in a long adventure, because falls off high places really aren't very common, or if an Ally can simply not show up, then Bad Temper should really only fry the PC's bacon once in a long adventure, and Pacifism might not even come up. To me, disads are "hooks" that I can elect to use (or abuse) as the GM. If they're always on, and all on at once, they lead to annoyingly "emo" characters who can't just clear their mind and act.
Good stuff. Regarding your first point: I do not have an issue with complex PCs. If you are willing to put up with the gaming and roleplaying issues that allowing potentially conflicting traits in one character can entail, you might as well let players have that option. A caveat might be to ensure that the effects of both traits come out, even in a conflict situation, to avoid the pitfall of one trait being "washed out" while the other is acted upon. Your rule would come into play here.
I find that such things can be modeled using Quirks to represent traits that will lose out in a conflict with a full-blown disad, but still present hooks for roleplaying purposes.

I am not completely clear on your second point. Certainly, a PC with Bad Temper is not going to be emotionally stressed all the time, but will need to make SC checks according to the in-game situation. Are you talking about you (as the GM) controlling what is going on around the PC so that those situations just do not come up as often?

It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world!
Not another shrubbery is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
conflicting traits, kromm explanation

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 02:58 AM.


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