Mechanics/techniques to incentivize disadvantages

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Spending a lot of effort on mitigating a Disadvantage like that is still something that likely has a cost. As I mentioned, always arranging for a text-to-voice assistance is likely to require time, or effort, or money, or an increased memorability for onlookers, or something. If it carries some kind of cost, then that is the Disadvantage harming the PC, and should be rewarded as such. If having a disadvantage carries no costs whatsoever (e.g. a fear of oceans in a campaign set on Tatooine), then it shouldn't provide any mention-worthy amount of points.

You can take such indirect costs into consideration as well, but that mostly just moves the problem. It makes sense for the character to try to find an as low cost method as possible to mitigate such disadvantages, but that won't allign with the incentives of the player for whom a more costly solution is not only gives more rewards, but also is also most likely much easier to come up with.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Andreas

You can take such indirect costs into consideration as well, but that mostly just moves the problem. It makes sense for the character to try to find an as low cost method as possible to mitigate such disadvantages, but that won't allign with the incentives of the player for whom a more costly solution is not only gives more rewards, but also is also most likely much easier to come up with.

It does align with the principle that "A Disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage you is not a Disadvantage". In fact, it's a self-balancing execution of this principle, session by session: the less disadvantaged a PC is, the less points awarded.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It does align with the principle that "A Disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage you is not a Disadvantage". In fact, it's a self-balancing execution of this principle, session by session: the less disadvantaged a PC is, the less points awarded.

Yes, "A Disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage you is not a Disadvantage", but the disadvantaging relevant for GURPS is how Disadvantages restrict the options available to your character. Not on what your character actually ends up doing. That is the general principle for how Advantages and Disadvantages are valued in GURPS. For example, a character with a Favor might end up just hoarding it in anticipation of a better oportunity to use it, but that won't change the point cost of that trait.

You could have a different approach where you pay points for your character's actions instead, but that would be a very different system from how GURPS mostly does things.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Yes, "A Disadvantage that doesn't disadvantage you is not a Disadvantage", but the disadvantaging relevant for GURPS is how Disadvantages restrict the options available to your character. Not on what your character actually ends up doing.

It seems to me that we're talking about the same thing. Let's take Cannot Swim for example. This trait disadvantages a character if he falls into water and needs a rescue. It also disadvantages a character if the character decides to stay at home when other PCs want to sail a mile from the coast to loot some sunken treasures. It doesn't disadvantage the character during the Tatooine Adventure.
A weakness to sunlight disadvantages a character who goes through the day through gritted teeth and suffers burns. It also disadvantages a character who always stays indoors in daytime to stay safe. It doesn't disadvantage a character during the Year of Eternal Night or the like.

The difference from normal GURPS is that the points are awarded based on the periods when a Disadvantage disadvantages the character, not at the start of a campaign based on the guesswork/estimate about how often it will disadvantage the character.

[Gnome]

In a recent campaign, I decided to try something like what's been suggested here: awarding points based on how often/the extent to which disadvantages hinder the character. There were some important qualifiers though:
--making a self-control roll, where failure could lead to some significant danger or hindrance, counts
--reminding the GM of GM-controlled disadvantages at appropriate times, or helping to come up with ways to apply them, counts (eg. Enemy, Weirdness Magnet, Dependent)
--the Ham clause applies: regardless of the normal mechanics of the disadvantage, you can always substitute a penalty to some significant action of -1 per -5 points of the disadvantage (eg. "distracted by my lecherous thoughts, I take a -3 on this attack)

The system worked to an extent, but there were some player complaints that led to subsequent modifications. The first issue was that players felt like they were competing for the spotlight and annoying each other. So we agreed on two things.
Firstly, the same number of points are awarded to all PCs, the number being based on generally how well everyone did making their disadvantages matter. Secondly, points are also be awarded for "mission progress" so that PCs aren't rewarded for bogging down the game with their Alcoholism, Compulsive Gambling, etc.
I've been using this system ever since with some success. We end every session with an accounting of how everyone's disadvantages came up in play, and then I award points based on the average number of times per player. If the disadvantage is physical or otherwise external to player choices, the player uses this time to remind everyone of how the disadvantage hindered the character.

[Seneschal]

That's exactly what I did recently for a cinematic campaign - instead of self-control rolls, disadvantages would activate whenever the GM would deem it narratively (in)appropriate. The player could prevent them from doing so by spending a fate point, or allow them, and be compensated with a fate point. Seems to work pretty well, especially if fate points also serve as a pool of "impulse buys".

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

But of course, how do you rate chronic disads, such as poverty, low status or one-handedness?

My version of the idea was that disadvantages completely outside of the character's control would remain as is: they give points at character creation, rather than during play. They might be combined with related personality traits* like a driving desire to prove yourself despite a handicap.

* I think of them as something other than disadvantages. Not quite sure what to call them, but I see them as a means to reward a player for character consistency, rather than compensate them for hardship.

[vordrax]

Sorry if this idea has already been mentioned, but what about this:

Gain no CPs for having disadvantages.

At the end of the session, gain 1 CP if you were (or, optionally, the party was) moderately inconvenienced or imperilled by your disadvantage(s) during the session. Gain 2 CPs if you were (or, optionally, the party was) extremely inconvenienced or imperilled by your disadvantage(s).

It leaves it up to the GM (no CPs for minor annoyances, but you can calibrate the level of the danger or inconvenience to the campaign), it's not going to rapidly inflate CP values, it doesn't favor weaker, more frequent disadvantages, it doesn't favor stacking tons of disadvantages, but it rewards having well-thought-out disadvantages that will influence how you play your character.

Otherwise, I like gaining points to be spent for Impulse Buys.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It seems to me that we're talking about the same thing. Let's take Cannot Swim for example. This trait disadvantages a character if he falls into water and needs a rescue. It also disadvantages a character if the character decides to stay at home when other PCs want to sail a mile from the coast to loot some sunken treasures. It doesn't disadvantage the character during the Tatooine Adventure.
A weakness to sunlight disadvantages a character who goes through the day through gritted teeth and suffers burns. It also disadvantages a character who always stays indoors in daytime to stay safe. It doesn't disadvantage a character during the Year of Eternal Night or the like.

The difference from normal GURPS is that the points are awarded based on the periods when a Disadvantage disadvantages the character, not at the start of a campaign based on the guesswork/estimate about how often it will disadvantage the character.

So, what you meant is that there would be no difference in reward between the one who stays home and the one who falls into the water in your Cannot Swim example? If so, it does indeed seem that the things we meant are rather similar. Though the extent to which the character's previous decisions affected whether a disadvantage is relevant in a period of time would have to be taken into account. For example, if the Year of Eternal Night was caused by player action, then the one with weakness to sunlight should probably still be rewarded (though the reward for such a weakness might be very small if it is easy for them to cause such a year long night).

Yes, it seems that such an approach could give a fairer result when the GM has not decided upon many aspects of the setting at character creation. Especially if the GM lets the knowledge of taken disadvantages influence those decisions (for example if the PCs all having Combat Paralysis makes bandit attacks more common in the setting).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Andreas

So, what you meant is that there would be no difference in reward between the one who stays home and the one who falls into the water in your Cannot Swim example? If so, it does indeed seem that the things we meant are rather similar. Though the extent to which the character's previous decisions affected whether a disadvantage is relevant in a period of time would have to be taken into account. For example, if the Year of Eternal Night was caused by player action, then the one with weakness to sunlight should probably still be rewarded (though the reward for such a weakness might be very small if it is easy for them to cause such a year long night).

Yes, it seems that such an approach could give a fairer result when the GM has not decided upon many aspects of the setting at character creation. Especially if the GM lets the knowledge of taken disadvantages influence those decisions (for example if the PCs all having Combat Paralysis makes bandit attacks more common in the setting).

In general, IME the frequency of phenomena in a setting doesn't automatically mean that it's anywhere near easy to predict the frequency of said phenomena in an upcoming campaign. At other times, giving a number of points at chargen that seems to clash with the setting expectations can act as a spoiler for future campaign arcs.
Adjusting the setting and campaign based on PC traits is certainly an option, but award-by-complication can be quite useful even without such adjustments. Which is why I want to try it out some time.