08-06-2010, 06:26 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
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. |
08-06-2010, 06:46 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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. |
|
08-06-2010, 07:27 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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. |
|
08-06-2010, 09:56 PM | #14 |
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
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...) |
08-07-2010, 02:16 PM | #15 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
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. :) |
08-08-2010, 12:57 AM | #16 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Pacific Northwest
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
|
|
08-08-2010, 07:22 PM | #17 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
|
|
08-09-2010, 01:28 AM | #18 | |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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). |
|
08-09-2010, 01:30 AM | #19 | |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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. |
|
08-09-2010, 01:35 AM | #20 | |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
|
Re: Quick Contest of...Disadvantages?
Quote:
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. |
|
Tags |
conflicting traits, kromm explanation |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|