Being self aware of mental disadvantages

[VariousRen]

Originally Posted by Maz

I'd say someone who try to resist all the time is an example of someone who should start to buy off the disadvantage.

Your examples are perfectly valid of course, but when people mention "making rolls all the time" I'm pretty sure it's because they have unfortunate experiences with ROLL-players who never attempts to play their disadvantages and only get them for free points and try to avoid actually being disadvantaged by constantly rolling. With a control roll of 6 you tend to fail all the time anyway. But with CR 15 it will very often mean that you never have to act on the disad, making it more or less "free points".

I absolutely do not, my group is amazingly flexible about rules, willing to flow with the narrative of the story, and jump between groups of characters and play them faithfully even when the two groups are working against each other. You can even confirm this for yourself, we record our games and post them to youtube, link is in my Sig.

CR is about being forced to do something even if it's in your best interested not to, choosing when to roll against your CR is about when your character views it in their best interest not to give in. This is such a powerful idea for roleplaying that it seems a shame to waste it and say "just buy off the disadvantage".

What would you do in the case of an imposed disadvantage? If a player is bitten by a werewolf, and gains bloodlust CR 15, should they just immediately give into that in the name of "good roleplaying"? The wild barbarian might, but the fallen paladin would resist at every turn and attempt every single self control roll. The paladin is no more or less valid in their roleplaying attempts as the barbarian.

As a side note, everyone should try to avoid their disadvantages being disadvantages. The guy with Honesty shouldn't be the mouth piece of the group, the guy with klutz shouldn't be the demolitions expert, the guy with miserly shouldn't be the quartermaster. If you are playing a mismatched character because it's interesting, you better make sure the entire group understands and agrees with that. As a player, it is incredibly annoying to watch your own character die because someone else said "haha, a klutz demo man, what a laugh!".

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Maz

I'd say someone who try to resist all the time is an example of someone who should start to buy off the disadvantage.
.

You could actually give the PC a point for every successful roll to resist, and the PC could only spend the point to buy off the disad.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Maz

I'd say someone who try to resist all the time is an example of someone who should start to buy off the disadvantage.
.

I'd say it's fine to try to resist all (or almost all) of the time as long as you roleplay it in a meaningful way. Particularly with things like alcoholism. I mean if you write-up the lead character of Elementary you have to give to give a disad representing his substance abuse problem because it does represent a big part of his character, but the fact is he does try to resist it almost all the time with a high resistance value. It's just that he ends up going to "meetings" after making his resistance roll.

[Otaku]

Okay, caught up unless someone posts while I am typing.

It can be hard to tell when some people are talking about role-playing or roll-playing; the downside of convenient word play is that such a typo is so common with less clever homophones that happen naturally, like "canon" and "cannon".

Disadvantages are worth points because they inconvenience the player. Role-playing certainly can be a harsh mistress, demanding of you actions that seem far in excessive of a Disadvantages value and there is that "funny place" where the rules seem to struggle to distinguish between two people just as likely to submit to a negative trait when tested but one is gleefully indulging except in the worst of circumstances while the other attempts to resist any time it comes up... and both can be examples of good role-playing because different characters call for one of those approaches.

I would like a good means of mechanically distinguishing the two but until I find one, it simply boils down to make sure which ever approach is correct for the character, the player follows it while making sure the Disadvantage points are still being "earned". It certainly is not an exact science, but something the GM and players must learn to agree upon.

Otherwise once that is all settled, I would require an SC check for a character to go along with plans to help him, her or it avoid being exposed to temptation, and if it takes long enough, additional rolls to keep agreeing to it. This can be good role-playing; ever had someone say "Remind me not to ____." but after a bit they grow annoyed at you because you did just that? =P Thinking up such constraints on your own may require an SC check both at the moment of devising the plan (to avoid abandoning it because "Why bother?" or sabotaging it either consciously or subconsciously) and then to go along with it.

If there are certain simple, common measures, buying a Standard Operating Perk seems appropriate; you got points back from the Disadvantage, but if you want to minimize the risk you can pay points, so that the net effect is the Disadvantage isn't as disadvantageous but its okay because the points involved reflect this. Just make sure that each S.O.P. is neither too broad nor to narrow (players tend to have an issue with the former, GMs an issue with the latter).

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Maz

But with CR 15 it will very often mean that you never have to act on the disad, making it more or less "free points".

That's when the GM sets up situations that impose penalties to the roll...

Originally Posted by VariousRen

What would you do in the case of an imposed disadvantage?

An imposed disad isn't 'free character points'.

If I impose a disad on a character I'm fine with the character doing everything they can to avoid having it trigger, without expecting them to (eventually) buy it off.

But ex-street thief guy with Kleptomania (CR:15)? If they always roll, then yes eventually they need to buy it off. Eventually.

[VariousRen]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

But ex-street thief guy with Kleptomania (CR:15)? If they always roll, then yes eventually they need to buy it off. Eventually.

Why require him to buy it off? Perhaps his character is fated to rail against his true nature the rest of his life, simultaneously proving the existence of fate and free will. On a player level, a player might like the juxtaposition of impulse and intention and the constant battle to remain "on the straight and narrow" despite everything he learned. Having the game mechanics force you into an awkward spot and then getting yourself out can be great source of conflict and fun. Without the game mechanics, you're just stealing the spotlight and saying "It's what my guy would have done".

It seems to me like the disadvantage you are talking about is actually a separate one. Basing it off of a OPH actually seems like a good place to start. OPH(I only need to hold my self back when it's life or death), or some variation of that that captures the idea that you only resist in very obviously dangerous/unbeneficial situations. The reaction penalty would fit very well for role playing as well as people get fed up with you not even trying to stop yourself.

For example:

Mark the recovered cat-burglar (Klepto, CR 15) might swipe an ash tray every few weeks, but at least he brings them back in the morning with a note and a fiver. Rick (Klepto, CR 15, OPH 3) comes in here every single night and grabs anything he can fit under his coat, and then calls the cops on us for refusing to serve him!

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by VariousRen

Why require him to buy it off?

Because a disadvantage that is not an actual disadvantage is tautologically speaking, not a disadvantage.

And thus, as far as I'm concerned, worth 0 character points.

Having the game mechanics force you into an awkward spot and then getting yourself out can be great source of conflict and fun.

Of course. But if one always checks ands succeed the roll, then one is never 'forced into an awkward spot' no is one?

That's what I'm talking about. Disads that become pure 'RP Spotlighting', there is no (or at worst minimal) risk to the character.

It seems to me like the disadvantage you are talking about is actually a separate one.

No it isn't:

Originally Posted by Base Set Characters, pg 121

You never have to try a self-control roll – you can always give in willingly, and it is good roleplaying to do so.

Mark the recovered cat-burglar (Klepto, CR 15) might swipe an ash tray every few weeks, but at least he brings them back in the morning with a note and a fiver.

That version is a Quirk and is worth 1 point.

Even if caught swiping the ashtray (unless it's an expensive ashtray) the worst he'll face is banned from the restaurant. He faces no serious risk from his behavior.

If he also faces the rsik of "Will swipe expensive stuff in high-end retail shops", then yes it's a disadvantage. If however he always chooses to roll the Control check and always succeeds in the 'high risk' shops... eventually I'll want the Player to buy the disad down to quirk level. If the only risk he wants the character to be facing is minimal, the only points it's worth are minimal.

[VariousRen]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Because a disadvantage that is not an actual disadvantage is tautologically speaking, not a disadvantage.

But if one always checks ands succeed the roll, then one is never 'forced into an awkward spot' no is one?

Are you currently allowing a CR of 19 or something? Unless I'm mistaken a CR of 15 comes up exactly the same number of times for you as it does for me, about 4.6% of the time, and that's the the absolute highest you can take it. Otherwise what you are really doing is taking a lower CR number without getting the points to make up for it. Disadvantages are inconvenient, and should generally be avoided. If you avoid it less than someone else, you are entitled to more points for it. I'm choosing to base the default appearance rate off of the CR and modify it from there.

An interesting idea is to require a player to always role a CR, even if they don't plan on resisting. When they succeed, it's clear to them (maybe not everyone around them) that they have the choice to do something else. This ensures that everyone is getting the same forced game play out of their disadvantage. It also allows anyone who wishes to play it to the hilt because that's their characters personality (but NOT their disadvantage) to do so.

And GURPS has always been, well... a set of guidelines more so than actual rules.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by VariousRen

Disadvantages are inconvenient, and should generally be avoided.

This seems like a good time to check one of my own potential misunderstandings about the game: I seem to recall part of the justification for many Disadvantages giving less points back than their Advantage counterparts cost because the assumption is that indeed, a player (and sometimes even a character) will minimize opportunities for succumbing to Disadvantages and maximize opportunities for benefiting from Advantages (including during character creation).

Anyone want to chime in if I've got that correct?

Originally Posted by VariousRen

An interesting idea is to require a player to always role a CR, even if they don't plan on resisting. When they succeed, it's clear to them (maybe not everyone around them) that they have the choice to do something else. This ensures that everyone is getting the same forced game play out of their disadvantage. It also allows anyone who wishes to play it to the hilt because that's their characters personality (but NOT their disadvantage) to do so.

I like this as it causes an intersection between role-playing and game mechanics where it is clear someone is choosing to hinder his or herself to better assume the role of the character. That plus potential bonus CP then become adequate compensation for the player that wishes to (for example) play not a recovering alcoholic, but one comfortable in his current state without needlessly penalizing the "recovering" alcoholic truly meant to recover. The latter should be required to expend if not all earned CP at least some of it periodically to improve his SC roll until it reaches the level appropriate to the character (nasty Quirk actually being free of it).

The player that falls in the middle? Wanting a character that is an alcoholic but hates being one and thus constantly tries to resist? In real life that has consequences as people begin to doubt your sincerity and is likely incredibly depressing/frustrating. Making sure the game reflects such things seems like it should offset the "gain" of always resisting but never actually buying off/buying down the trait.

At least until someone tells me how they've tried this but it doesn't work (and why it doesn't work). ;)