Wanderer (Disadvantage)

[Anders]

You can never seem to settle down in one place for too long. Soon the road beckons again and the lure of new sights and new places becomes too great to resist.

If you are settled down you roll against your self-control once per month, with modifiers for weather (+1 to +4 if the land is covered in snow or mud), season (-3 for springtime) and whatever else the GM feels like. If you fail, you must convert any immovable possessions into movable ones and head out for the road. And if you try to settle down, you need another self-control roll with modifiers for how pleasant the place is and how long you've been on the road (-1 for each month on the road).

Does this seem like an interesting disadvantage? And how much should it be worth?

[ericthered]

That's going to vary highly by campaign.

I'm inclined to something between -5 and -10 though. It has drastic effects, but only once a month. It'd be hard to use in anything but a solo adventure though.

What are the adverse effects if you can't leave? Say if you're in a prison?

[Engurrand]

Originally Posted by ericthered

That's going to vary highly by campaign.

I'm inclined to something between -5 and -10 though. It has drastic effects, but only once a month. It'd be hard to use in anything but a solo adventure though.

What are the adverse effects if you can't leave? Say if you're in a prison?

I homebrewed something almost identical. I called it [5] and added that inability to leave a place despite failed self control roll gives (at first) penalties to existing self control rolls equal to # of weeks since failed roll, any critical failure converts this disadvantage into double it's cost worth of Bad Temper and/or Loner, compulsive behavior, etc.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Does this seem like an interesting disadvantage? And how much should it be worth?

I have a PC (a weretiger not-a-shaman named 該死的 庥; poor guy) with something like this. I priced it as: Compulsive Wanderer [-5*]

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Does this seem like an interesting disadvantage?

Not really, no. The problem with it in a gaming context is that either the premise of the game is "nomadic adventurers", in which case the character will be getting points for an advantage that isn't an inconvenience, or it will be based in some kind of home base area, in which case it's the disadvantage of having to leave the other characters behind and that runs into that wise maxim "Never split the party".

Wanderlust makes an acceptable quirk but as a Compulsion it's just a nuisance or a crock.

[Engurrand]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Not really, no. The problem with it in a gaming context is that either the premise of the game is "nomadic adventurers", in which case the character will be getting points for an advantage that isn't an inconvenience, or it will be based in some kind of home base area, in which case it's the disadvantage of having to leave the other characters behind and that runs into that wise maxim "Never split the party".

Wanderlust makes an acceptable quirk but as a Compulsion it's just a nuisance or a crock.

Neh. I agree that lots, maybe most, games are either/or of those, but not all. Some include both elements, and being restricted to one of them is a disadvantage.

For example, in my woken earth (modern urban fantasy) campaign I have two campaign groups who routinely interact with each other. One group has been wandering hither and yon chasing clues since they started. The other settled down and built a base. They've actually been very successful - taking the time to build a base, even if only for the off-screen time, can yield huge benefits.

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

The thing is, this would still reduce freedom in a nomadic adventurers campaign. Without it, nomads can choose to stay in one place longer than they planned to avoid bad weather or dangerous travelling conditions or marauding armies, or to finish some business they have in town (which may be something very important, such as helping an Ally or Dependent in trouble, stopping an enemy's scheme, finding lost gear, appearing in court or filing taxes because otherwise you'll be outlawed, getting necessary travelling supplies, finishing a job or duty you promised to complete, etc.), because there was a prophecy that X will happen on Y day if they stay/if they go, or because one of them is injured and will not heal easily (or at all!) while on the move, or needs a treatment only available here.

It can also screw up your ability to make or maintain relationships with people. If your culture expects men to stay put all season with their wives, but you go gallivanting off every 2 weeks, your wife (and kids, and neighbors) may get ticked off. You may even be inelligible for certain jobs.

(Of course, if your culture isn't normally nomadic, or the laws penalize nomads, you can have tons of other problems, but those would be separate disadvantages.)

However, I would probably expect all or most of the characters to have it, or give it to their leader and make the rest of the characters loyal to them, so it would not split the party.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Engurrand

Neh. I agree that lots, maybe most, games are either/or of those, but not all. Some include both elements, and being restricted to one of them is a disadvantage.

Except that a game that includes compulsive wanderlust isn't a game that can include both elements. Not until the player is ready to retire his character. It isn't the players options that are being restricted. It's everyone elses.

[Engurrand]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Except that a game that includes compulsive wanderlust isn't a game that can include both elements. Not until the player is ready to retire his character. It isn't the players options that are being restricted. It's everyone elses.

That assumes the party is required to stick together. Or that there is a "party" at all.
Certainly that's a common assumption, but not a universal one.

[vierasmarius]

I would approach the Wanderlust disadvantage not from the angle of "Must move around constantly" but as "Gains increasing (but not open-ended) penalties for staying in one place." And yes, it's still situational, and not appropriate to all games... but that's no different from a broad array of existing traits. A druid or elf who must commune with nature on a daily basis would suffer practically no penalty in a wilderness campaign, but would be totally crippled in a game set on a space station.

I'd expect the disadvantage to mostly affect how down time is spent. For games that take place primarily in one spot, the other characters could hold jobs or train, but the Wanderer would be compelled to spend some of that time on the road. This wouldn't be time wasted, of course, especially if their profession involves traveling, such as a bard or merchant. And of course, nothing about being a Wanderer should preclude returning to the same town in time for the next adventure.