PCs with very different reaction modifiers

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Something I've run into GMing GURPS is with PCs having very different traits that influence reactions.

The "face" character shouldn't be penalized for having socially inept or disreputable companions as long as they are operating on their own. Publicly hanging out with such characters is a good way to get a bad Reputation, however.

I'd be hesitant to penalize a Face character just because of the company they keep - as long as the Face appears to socially dominant in the situation. ("Charming girl, even if I don't care for her choice of bodyguards.")

If the Face isn't socially dominant, their bonuses shouldn't apply and the "ugly" character's penalties take precedence. ("Whassamatta, you can't speak for yerself? Tell your goil to siddown an' shaddup!")

In a social situation where the party isn't in a cohesive group (e.g., mingling at a party) the GM is justified in making individual reaction rolls for each character. Socially adept characters can either wheel and deal on their own or spend their time tending the less socially adept group members to keep them out of trouble, but not both. That indirectly limits their effectiveness. If they try to do both, apply penalties for multi-tasking to any social skill rolls they might attempt and roll reactions for the socially inept character to see if they get themselves into trouble while the Face is distracted.

People with Intolerance or who are looking for trouble will always react to the party based on their reaction modifiers to group members with Social Stigmas or other obvious negative traits. ("I ain't gotta problem with you, personally, but we don't serve HIS kind in this here establishment.") Publicly defying social prejudices is a great way for all characters involved to get a bad Reputation (as an "[ethnic slur]-lover") with local bigots. Even if the party sticks together and tries to avoid trouble, socially penalized characters will still attract negative comments, forcing the other members of the group to do some roleplaying as they decide how they react to their friend being socially attacked.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

...

That is very useful guidance, takes account of the environment and centers on PC agency to respond.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by Rupert

That's basically making the 'face' pay for the combat wombat's combat advantages.

As the combat wombat has also paid to able to defend the face when combat erupts...

Like Refplace said, specialization happens. And, if you reread my post, you'll notice some exceptions and caveats I think you're ignoring.

Originally Posted by Anthony

The core problem is that personal disadvantages should result in personal costs -- "I'm more powerful at a cost of the rest of the party being weaker" causes table problems. However, reaction penalties aren't worth their point value if you can ignore them by just sitting in the back and letting other people talk.

Welcome to such great Disads as Enemy and Dependent, making problems for the whole group since 1986... and Weirdness Magnet sinece the early 90s...

Now, we've spent almost 40 years figuring out how to nuance the worst of the "effects the whole party" Disads, but the Reaction penalty Disads tend to be a persistent issue.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I'd be hesitant to penalize a Face character just because of the company they keep - as long as the Face appears to socially dominant in the situation.

Why not? They chose to keep them. As you mentioned, it's a good reason for a Bad Reputation, that they get for free...

Usually I require the group to make Character together, this tends to reduce the issue since if Player A wants to make a 'face' type to sell/buy/run social ops for the group, the group rarely wants to mess that up too badly, so if someone decides to buck the group and "make a monster anyway", well... it doesn't usually go well for the Player.

The few times I've seen a "beauty" and the "beast" scenario in the games I've run, the socially inept/terrible PC usually also decided to forego being stuck "in Town" or in social situations as much as possible, and since they really only show up in Fantasy games (and DF/RPG ones at that) they tend to literally avoid being in town at all (and often cannot come into town) so rarely actually get counted against the face anyway.

[dcarson]

And some modifiers won't be a problem if played right. Having a Second Class citizen as a bodyguard shouldn't be a problem. That's what Second Class are for, to be used in bad jobs. Now treating them as an equal, insisting on them being allowed to stay at a good inn. That will cause a penalty.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by dcarson

And some modifiers won't be a problem if played right. Having a Second Class citizen as a bodyguard shouldn't be a problem. That's what Second Class are for, to be used in bad jobs. Now treating them as an equal, insisting on them being allowed to stay at a good inn. That will cause a penalty.

"I am one man. This is a servant."

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by whswhs

"I am one man. This is a servant."

Is this a quote from something?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Welcome to such great Disads as Enemy and Dependent, making problems for the whole group since 1986... and Weirdness Magnet sinece the early 90s...

I agree, they're all bad disadvantages that should be removed. There should probably be a category for "plot hooks" -- zero-point features that the GM can use to create adventures -- and all three moved into that category.

[Donny Brook]

I'm skeptical about the validity of the selection of Disadvantages people complain about affecting the entire 'party'.

For one thing, the idea of a PC 'party' is an arbitrary artifact in itself.

For another thing, if there is a party, all of everyone's disadvantages affect it. The one with Bloodlust kills your prisoners before interrogation. The one with Trickster annoys the local Baron where you're trying to buy a keep. The one with Chronic Pain is dead weight while they're suffering. Don't even get started on the problems a Charitable PC will cause!

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Is this a quote from something?

I'm about 99% certain that it is, I remember it from something, but trying to find it got me nowhere useful.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

I'm about 99% certain that it is, I remember it from something, but trying to find it got me nowhere useful.

It sounds like something the insufferable git played by Alec Guiness in Bridge on the River Kwai would say.