Male PCs and a very unexpected surprise...(any system)

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by Kyle Aaron

Lecherous is not Impulsive, those are different traits.

It is also not Automatically Successful. If it were it would be worth less points.

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

Social Disease is a Disadvantage and a player has say on what disads the character starts out with.

Background elements such as a son you never knew you fathered are in a zone where the GM has some say in the matter.

Yes and no. In game terms, we'd expect the son to act as Dependant, or part of a Sense of Duty, or similar. And even if the GM didn't impose that, many players would roleplay it that way - in fact the GM would probably insist they did so unless their character had Callous or something - so you're getting the bad part of a Disadvantage without getting the points for it, or having chosen it.

Is that fair? Seems harsh. This is why even for a Lecherous and Impusilve character, the GM should discuss this sort of thing with the player beforehand. Some players love it, some don't.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kyle Aaron

Yes and no. In game terms, we'd expect the son to act as Dependant, or part of a Sense of Duty, or similar. And even if the GM didn't impose that, many players would roleplay it that way - in fact the GM would probably insist they did so unless their character had Callous or something - so you're getting the bad part of a Disadvantage without getting the points for it, or having chosen it.

Is that fair? Seems harsh. This is why even for a Lecherous and Impusilve character, the GM should discuss this sort of thing with the player beforehand. Some players love it, some don't.

Not remotely true. One of the classic 19th-century bits of social drama has been the servant girl who gets pregnant, loses her position, and is put out on the street . . . often with a bastard child on the way who was fathered by someone in her employer's household. There is also the old observation by a British woman touring the antebellum south that a southern woman could tell you which white man on every other plantation had fathered every slave girl's mulatto (or quadroon or octoroon) child, but thought that the ones on her plantation just dropped down from heaven.

A child who becomes a Dependent or the subject of a Sense of Duty may well be an "acknowledged bastard," or even "legitimized." Or they may simply be quietly provided for by a father who feels responsible. (Note that they might be included in Sense of Duty: Family rather than requiring a new disadvantage.) But not all fathers would do any of those things.

I think that in GURPS terms, the relevant trait is Secret. If you are sexually active, and having it known could bring discredit on you, you have a Secret. Having an illegitimate child show up would represent the threat of exposure of the Secret. And realistically, in many settings, being sexually active *would* be a secret. If your culture disapproves of such things sufficiently that their exposure would face you with prison, or job loss, or being shunned by "decent people," then any character who is regularly sexually active ought to have a Secret as well as whatever other trait applies.

Unless, of course, you have a social asymmetry: the man has a lot of sexual partners, but the mother of this particular child would have only been involved with him. He wouldn't even keep track, but she would. And then she would have to go away quietly rather than tell him. That's kind of an unusual story. But I suppose it might work.

Was it fair for James Kirk to suddenly acquire an illegitimate son? I think so. Kirk was notorious for not keeping it in his pants, and for traveling all over the galaxy not doing so.

Bill Stoddard

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Kyle Aaron

Then every character with Lecherous must also take Social Disease? Ahem.

Lecherous is not Impulsive, those are different traits.

A lecherous person has an unusually strong interest in the area, but is quite capable of thinking about what they're doing. It's an impulsive person who's likely to forget about contraception.

A Lecherous character could also only be a flirt, who is is driven to play the game, not the end result.

I've only played one character where sex was a major component. It was a female spellthief. She knew e lived out idea of the social mores, she as an adventurer after all. So she was determined to get the mouse enjoyment out of life.

If the GM had decided that one of her encounters resulted in pregnancy, and she did not miscarry before she was even aware of it (she was healthy but the type in injury adventurers sustain regularly is cont conducive), she would have had no problem seeking out cleric to 'resolve' her 'problem' as her plans did not included settling down ad having a kid. they were for other people in her outlook.

If I had a male counterpart to that character, I also would have no problem with the GM saying I had a child out there that was used a plot hook, as long as the sub plot would not result in the character hiving to to leave the party. Such a character would have no problem 'helping' but was not ready to be a 'father'. But they key hered was the campina was the wandering adventurers style so my characters have personalities to soot.

If the campaign is of a different style like Say Suppers or Special Forces where you can have a life out side of your 'job' I'm much more open to possibles an the results will not take my character out of the game.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

A Lecherous character could also only be a flirt, who is is driven to play the game, not the end result.

The wording in the Basic Set does not appear to support that assumption. All of the consequences named are consistent with actually seeking to carry through, not just to flirt.

Flirtatiousness sounds like a quirk, or maybe a 5-point OPH.

Bill Stoddard

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The wording in the Basic Set does not appear to support that assumption. All of the consequences named are consistent with actually seeking to carry through, not just to flirt.

Flirtatiousness sounds like a quirk, or maybe a 5-point OPH.

Bill Stoddard

I would have disagree with you, it says they Romance not Sex. Sex is often an outcome but ti done not say the chacter must have it, and it of course the consequence are the "or (possibly) an adoring new friend" or even the 'scorned lover who you turned down whe they were read to go from flirtation to sex and got turned down.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

I would have disagree with you, it says they Romance not Sex. Sex is often an outcome but ti done not say the chacter must have it, and it of course the consequence are the "or (possibly) an adoring new friend" or even the 'scorned lover who you turned down whe they were read to go from flirtation to sex and got turned down.

Flirtation is not romance, or very much like it. And to be blunt, this whole attempt to argue that a character could have the Lecherousness disadvantage, and get points for it, but never actually attempt to consummate any of their attractions and thus avoid a large share of the consequent risks, strikes me as rules lawyering. I wouldn't allow it.

More specifically, if you took Lecherousness for your character, and failed a self-control roll, and then did NOT have your character pursue a physically consummated encounter with them . . . I would dock you eeps for not roleplaying. Because the person who keeps dangling the bait, and then snatching it away before it can be taken, is NOT lecherous. (I might allow Compulsive Tease as a new limitation, with a base of -5, not -15.) So I don't see any unfairness in assuming, retroactively, that your character acted in the past as their character sheets require them to act in the present.

If you put something on your character sheet, that's a signal to the GM that you want it to come into the character's story.

Bill Stoddard

[roguebfl]

Flirt is lesser former or Romance true, But I also said they were interested in the game not the sex. The still have to deal with scored loves, and Jealous spouses and social assumption of sex going. the only draw backs you don't get from a fail roll is pregnancies and STDs, But you DO get all the social disvatges of play a Renaissance Flob

[Mark Skarr]

While I've argued Rogue's point in the past, I do agree with Bill.

Lecherousness means that you're going to try to consumate any "relationship" you generate.

Originally Posted by Characters, pg 142

If you fail, you must make a “pass,” using whatever wiles and skills you can bring to bear. You must then suffer the consequences of your actions, successful or not: physical retribution, jail, communicable disease, or (possibly) an adoring new friend.

It's pretty obvoius that it was intended for.

If you're just a flirt, I think Bill's right that it would only be -5 points. But, for -15, you're pretty much the GM's patsy.

[Xenarthral]

Isn't the issue the assumption that someone with Lecherousness is actually successful in the pursuit at least once in a while?
You can hit on anything that one could conceivably put a skirt (or pink bow any other paraphernalia commonly used to signify feminimity) on and still never get anywhere close to a physically consummated encounter.

Lecherousness leaves you open to vengeful former targets and relatives of targets and inconvenient legal obstacles ("Sorry, we can't team up the Biofriends. Both Beastmistress and Vine Girl have restraining orders against me."), but for previously unknown children the personality and past behaviour of the character is more relevant than Lecherousness.
(Then again, even a spectacularly unsuccessful Lecher could have a hard time convincing people that he is not the father when so accused, especially if he's in the habit of covering up his witnessed failures with claims of greater successes elsewhere and in the past.)

In other words:
I can believe James Bond having several unknown kids with any number of forgotten-by-him Bond girls.
I would not expect Ataru Morobishi to have any unknown kids or indeed having had any success at all outside the very limited options among the series regulars.