Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-06-2010, 06:26 PM   #11
Edges
 
Edges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostdancer View Post
... can one character have two Sense of Duty's?
Ghostdancer
There's a character in our current game with SoD Women and SoD Cats. It's worked out fine. And in the rare event the character has to choose between helping a woman or helping a cat, the player rolls. No problemo.

If one SoD was a subset of another?... hmm... Well if the subset were of equal or lesser importance, I wouldn't let them claim points for the subset. A SoD to ones companions is just an extension of a SoD to humanity. But if the subset could supersede the other... just off the top of my head, I'd say I'd let them claim half the points for the larger set. So If they had a SoD to humanity that they could ignore if their SoD to the adventuring party conflicted with it, it's not as bad as having a full on SoD to Humanity. So -12pt. in that case.

I'm not sure how to implement Kromm's groovy rolling scheme to disadvantage subsets. I don't think I would. I'd use that for the woman/cat type situations above.
Edges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 06:46 PM   #12
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
A SoD to ones companions is just an extension of a SoD to humanity.
Not really. The way I see a Sense of Duty to Humanity (or a Nation or whatever large group) is that your sense of duty is to the whole of Humanity (or the whole Nation, whatever), but not to the individual members of Humanity (or the nation, etc).

In other words, a man could have Sense of Duty: Humanity and go about trying to make a utopia, but while doing so he could injure individual humans so long as it's for 'the greater good'.

Same deal with Sense of Duty: Nature and hunting down predators who are unbalancing the ecosystem/starting a backfire to combat a forest fire/etc.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 07:27 PM   #13
Edges
 
Edges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
Not really. The way I see a Sense of Duty to Humanity (or a Nation or whatever large group) is that your sense of duty is to the whole of Humanity (or the whole Nation, whatever), but not to the individual members of Humanity (or the nation, etc).

In other words, a man could have Sense of Duty: Humanity and go about trying to make a utopia, but while doing so he could injure individual humans so long as it's for 'the greater good'.

Same deal with Sense of Duty: Nature and hunting down predators who are unbalancing the ecosystem/starting a backfire to combat a forest fire/etc.
That's not how I read SoD: Humanity. Wanting to create a utopia (or what you think is a utopia) without regard to individuals sounds more like Fanaticism or Obsession. Hitler could have felt that killing all the Jews was for "the greater good" of the world, but I don't think I'd give him SoD: All Humanity.

IMO, where the rubber hits the road for this disadvantage is in the second sentence of the description:
"You will never betray them, abandon them when they're in trouble, or let them suffer or go hungry if you can help."
If you're on your way to the battle and you pass someone starving on the side of the road, you don't ignore them with the excuse that the battle is part of your plans to create utopia and he is not. That wouldn't really be much of a disadvantage. I see it more like Charitable than Fanaticism.

I guess what I'm saying is that SoD should apply to the whole and the individuals.

Hunting down a predator who is unbalancing the environment is done in last resort. And killing it is emotionally difficult. And you say a prayer for it. And you're careful not to step on any bunnies while you're doing it.

On a smaller scale, I believe SoD to adventuring companions applies to each adventuring companion not just to the party as a whole. If you've gotten past all the traps and your thief gets injured and is bleeding out, you don't say "don't bother healing him, he's of no more use to the party" even if his only decent skill was Traps.
Edges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 09:56 PM   #14
Vaevictis Asmadi
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

I think that conflicting mental disadvantages could be very interesting to role-play out in detail. I had fun doing something like that in a Traveller scenario I played at a convention this year. I don't remember if my character actually had SoD, but she had something that conflicted with her Honesty. The GM let me roll against Honesty to get a rough estimate of where I sat, but had me roleplay the details and the actual decision (arguing with the other characters the whole time). It took up a good chunk of the scenario (by design) and was quite interesting.
__________________
I have Confused and Clueless. Sometimes I miss sarcasm and humor, or critically fail my Savoir-Faire roll. None of it is intentional.

Published GURPS Settings
(as of 4/2013 -- I hope to update it someday...)
Vaevictis Asmadi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 02:16 PM   #15
Flyndaran
Untagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Hey. I've done this in reality. I called it dueling sins.
Gluttony for more two liters of diet pepsi (I drink over 6 liters a day) versus laziness/anxiety to go the store.
Some times one won, sometimes the other.
I eventually stopped doing it, because it was a bit stressful... or you could say that laziness eventually won the war. :)
Flyndaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2010, 12:57 AM   #16
The Resistance
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Pacific Northwest
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran View Post
Hey. I've done this in reality. I called it dueling sins.
Gluttony for more two liters of diet pepsi (I drink over 6 liters a day) versus laziness/anxiety to go the store.
Some times one won, sometimes the other.
I eventually stopped doing it, because it was a bit stressful... or you could say that laziness eventually won the war. :)
Excellent example. Another would be Obsession and Laziness.
The Resistance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2010, 07:22 PM   #17
Not another shrubbery
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostdancer
I think this applies in the thread too...I have been curious can one character have two Sense of Duty's? It seems pretty explicit from your above post but I've seen it kicked around on the fora so often going this or that way.
Kromm's reply notwithstanding, I am generally against allowing conflicting disadvantages, because of the necessary condition that, in the case of conflict, at least one of the disadvantages will end up not being roleplayed properly. I have similar reservations against the idea of multiple SoDs. Bill explained it most succinctly early in the thread Question about sense of duty. The rest of that thread might be of interest also, but there is a bit of drift to plow through.
Not another shrubbery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 01:28 AM   #18
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
I would not use points for this, though. Disadvantage values do not rate psychological pull alone. Some mental problems are worth many points due to other effects: costly in terms of cash, obvious, causes reaction penalties, gives skill penalties, has physical consequences, etc. It's entirely possible – and realistic – for a gluttonous fanatic to be caught pigging out on rations when he's supposed to be standing on guard for his glorious cause. Gluttony being worth -10 points at worst to Fanaticism's -15 doesn't change this.
Good point.

Of course, I favour the "give every mental disad a roll strength"-approach, but even then not all Flaws of the same severity grade (e.g. in Modern Action RPG, or in Sagatafl, all Normal flaws or all Major Flaws) gets the same Roll Strength. Ones that are broad in scope get a lower Roll Strength for the same severity (e.g. Party Animal, Immature or PTSD), and the same should go for ones that are highly illegal (Alcoholism in some strict Moslem countries at some times, but probably not in the ethanol-soaked prohibition era of the USA).
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 01:30 AM   #19
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery View Post
Kromm's reply notwithstanding, I am generally against allowing conflicting disadvantages, because of the necessary condition that, in the case of conflict, at least one of the disadvantages will end up not being roleplayed properly. I have similar reservations against the idea of multiple SoDs. Bill explained it most succinctly early in the thread Question about sense of duty. The rest of that thread might be of interest also, but there is a bit of drift to plow through.
I like the idea of a character in conflict with himself.

Of course, if the character is created in such a way that internal conflict will happen all the time, the player is possibly trying to sabotage the campaign through excessive angst, but a little internal conflict now and then can be a lot of fun.
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 01:35 AM   #20
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges View Post
I'm not sure how to implement Kromm's groovy rolling scheme to disadvantage subsets. I don't think I would. I'd use that for the woman/cat type situations above.
Have one DisAdvantage, but with a built-in penalty or bonus to the Self Control Roll in some situations.

Much like Lecherous (15-, but 12- with Blondes).

Assuming Sense of Duty has a SCR (I can't remember if this is the case), then just have SoD Humanity (15-, but 12- or 9- for friends).

The permanent modifier to the SCR can either be just there, with no compensation given to the player, or can be allowed as a Quirk if it is a fairly common -3 modifier or a -6 or -9 modifier of any rarity.
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
conflicting traits, kromm explanation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.