08-09-2010, 01:27 PM | #21 |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
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] |
08-09-2010, 03:23 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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. |
|
08-09-2010, 03:43 PM | #23 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
08-09-2010, 04:12 PM | #24 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
Addiction: Bypassing the disadvantage leads to temporary mental disads. The concept of mounting temporary psychiatric problems is adaptable to many mental disadvantages.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] |
|
08-10-2010, 10:52 AM | #25 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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 :] |
|
08-10-2010, 11:33 AM | #26 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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] |
|
08-11-2010, 10:40 AM | #27 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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! |
|
Tags |
conflicting traits, kromm explanation |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|