Flavoring disadvantages completely differently

[kirbwarrior]

Recently I was talking with a player about an NPC and they said the NPC might actually have Killjoy. I knew she didn't (she could and did feel pleasure) but mechanically the trait did fit; -3 to Carousing definitely made sense and reactions to her did line up with "she doesn't seem to care". Even being immune to Euphoria and Ecstasy lined up with how I imagined her acting, effectively getting immunity to them for free. She doesn't not feel pleasure, but she still came across as a killjoy to everyone around her. It probably didn't help she spoke very monotone (Disturbing Voice).

It then made me think of other times this has come up. I've had players change Nightmares and Chronic Pain to Non-Prophetic Dreams and Chronic Euphoria respectively which don't change the underlying mechanics but vastly change what they mean; The first was someone who basically thought their dreams were prophecies of the future (critical failures were them looking really hard for clues from their extremely vague dreams) and the second was someone who was a recovering drug addict (I don't recall the details perfectly). I've taken On The Edge as effectively a psuedo vow of pride.

Anybody have any stories of when they've done this before? I love the idea of vastly different flavor for the same mechanics, especially when those mechanics seem to imply a certain thing.

[ericthered]

I don't know how "Completely Different" these are, but I've used callous in a detached character rather than in the intentionally cruel character its expected in.

I've also used Selfish to mean "Stuck-up arrogant guy". Its not immediately apparent that those two work together (probably due to the name), but its a really good fit.

[Gumby Bush]

Delusions and OPHs can be really flexible (and essentially interchangeable) if you don't look at the skin too hard.

Delusion (Racial Confusion) [-10]; could just as easily be OPH (Racial Confusion) [-10]; the point is, the character basically believes:
If you have a beard, you are a dwarf
If you are beardless and tall, you are an elf
If you are beardless and short, you must be awesome, and you are a gnome.

He could be convinced to move from those conditionals if people argued, but generally by assuming they were some other race they weren't.

The character was a gnome, if that last conditional doesn't make it obvious.

[Not]

I view point costs as paying for effects. The fluff about causes I view as RP advice, which I don't always take.

[whswhs]

There's nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact it's a fairly standard way to create new advantages and disadvantages. When I added Ultrapower to GURPS Supers, I based it on Gadgeteer, for example. I do recommend coming up with a new name, but you seem to be doing that. Then you can think of it not as "a different flavor of the same disadvantage" but as "an analogous disadvantage."

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've also used Selfish to mean "Stuck-up arrogant guy". Its not immediately apparent that those two work together (probably due to the name), but its a really good fit.

Frankly, "Arrogant" is probably a better fit for the written description of the disadvantage (always striving for status and social dominance, and lashing out when thwarted in that regard, but with no particular reluctance to share things otherwise) than "Selfish".

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Gumby Bush

Delusions and OPHs can be really flexible (and essentially interchangeable) if you don't look at the skin too hard.

I was in another thread pointing out how similar these two are in Basic (Delusion gets some extra versions in other books).

Originally Posted by whswhs

Then you can think of it not as "a different flavor of the same disadvantage" but as "an analogous disadvantage."

That too. I used to have "Moron" that's just Klutz but for IQ. No one's taken it and I'm not quite sure how well the first level actually works, so I might actually just make a new disadvantage that's just the second level of Klutz but for IQ rolls.

Originally Posted by ravenfish

Frankly, "Arrogant" is probably a better fit for the written description of the disadvantage (always striving for status and social dominance, and lashing out when thwarted in that regard, but with no particular reluctance to share things otherwise) than "Selfish".

And I find 'Selfish' works as well as if not better than 'Stubbornness' for it's effect. And then Honesty should probably be Law-Abiding instead.

On the note of Selfish, I remembered one character took I think Fanaticism (Self) as an extreme version of Selfish.