Lecherousness & Bisexuality

[Eukie]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Crimson Fox, with her Appearance, Allure Talent, Charisma and, Voice advantages, coupled with her astronomical social skills and multi-sexuality, should have Lecherousness as an advantage, as she is going to be much more successful in using it as an instigation to manipulation.

Since there's nothing preventing her from making passes at people as an instigation to manipulation anyway, Lecherousness isn't an Advantage. It's a restriction, so it's pretty much always going to be a Disadvantage.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by malloyd

So if I move to a city, where I encounter orders of magnitude more people who might provoke the disadvantage, I should get *vastly* more points for it? I think it's pretty clear to everybody that one is no, so a simple doubling should be an easy call.

While I'm not sure I can agree with the following statement exactly, I think there's something to:

Originally Posted by mehrkat

You hit on the most attractive person around that suits your taste. It's still hitting on one character.

My take is that the broader your potential prospects, the more lenient I'd be willing to be with a player over the interpretation of p.142's usage of the word "appealing"

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Kfireblade

That's not an accurate of what should be happening with the disadvantage at all though.

"more than the briefest contact" could sure use some elaboration though

as could "an appealing member". Given the -5 for handsome/beautiful perhaps the baseline requires "attractive" advantage, and you're not obligated to hit on average (0-point) attractive chars?

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

It's the same disadvantage.
While they've doubled their chances of rejection, they've also doubled their chances of acceptance.
It all evens out in the wash.

The problem with lecherousness isn't whether you're rejected/accepted but rather being obligated to hit on people in situations where it might not be opportune to do so.

Even if you're not a lech you can still hit on people when it IS opportune.

As far as I'm concerned, "androphilia" and "gynephilia" are quirks (mechanically there's no defined upside, just that you can be manipulated by a gender) so since bisexuality is BOTH it's like -2. If we assume that a monosexual genderphilia is assumed by default then bisexuality should only be -1.

Power-Ups 6 pg 26 has "Alternative Sexuality" quirk for "out" people as a minor version of social stigma, but that's basically reputation-wise, not relevant to characters who don't have reputations.

Pretence (pg 33) is for closeted, a form of "Trivial Secret", but that still doesn't cover the suceptability to being seduced by 2 sexes instead of 1. If there were an alien species with 3 sexes then being trisexual might be -2, and if there were six genders then liking them all would probably be a -5?

The only way I can think for it to always balance out to 0 would be if you had some kind of inherent penalty to seduce people who you weren't attracted to. Basically if being attracted to someone had benefits (like +1 to influence them) to balance out the drawbacks (-1 to resist influence from them) or however that works.

[Polydamas]

So I think its fair to say that as a product of a particular place and time and design team, GURPS is not as strong on gender and sexuality as it is on say hand-to-hand combat or confidence games.

Originally Posted by malloyd

So if I move to a city, where I encounter orders of magnitude more people who might provoke the disadvantage, I should get *vastly* more points for it? I think it's pretty clear to everybody that one is no, so a simple doubling should be an easy call.

No. See previous discussion about how often the advantage will be triggered in the same adventure for characters in to both sexes, one sex, and neither sex. The basic ideas are that point costs are setting-neutral (because the GM controls that and that way lies madness) and values of disadvantages are not reduced depending on how able the character is to handle the consequences (that way lies madness), but that if a character will on average have their disadvantage triggered in more situations, they should get more points.

Also, I don't think that the disadvantage is necessarily worse in a city ... the hypothetical village-based character will proposition the same people again and again, and more of them will know the propositioner and be part of the right social networks to exact consequences. As the rules say "Note that you are likely to change your standards of attractiveness if no truly attractive members of the appropriate sex are available!"

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Plane

The only way I can think for it to always balance out to 0 would be if you had some kind of inherent penalty to seduce people who you weren't attracted to.

In my experience? No. While I'm less likely to ever try to seduce someone I'm not attracted, it has happened, and I didn't find it any more or less difficult. But that may be down to quirks of my psychology rather than a hard fast rule.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

So I think its fair to say that as a product of a particular place and time and design team, GURPS is not as strong on gender and sexuality as it is on say hand-to-hand combat or confidence games.

Personally, I'm fine with that. However if someone writes (and GURPS publishes) Social Engineering: Sexual Attraction and Manipulation I'm not going to boycott over it.


(I'd probably even buy it in case it had useful rules)

See previous discussion about how often the advantage will be triggered in the same adventure for characters in to both sexes, one sex, and neither sex.

Is there going to be a difference? That's down to the GM putting 'desirable' targets into the adventure. The GM shouldn't put more sexy targets in just because the Character is a bisexual Lech than if they were a monsexual Lech.

And if the GM is going to do so then it is incumbent upon the GM to alter the cost of the disadvantage appropriately.

The basic ideas are that point costs are setting-neutral (because the GM controls that and that way lies madness)...

I disagree with "that way lies madness". I do 'engineer' encoutners to have Disad triggering moments if a PC has gone far too long with Disads being triggered. It's rare, but it does occur.

... values of disadvantages are not reduced depending on how able the character is to handle the consequences (that way lies madness)...

Agreed. Though if a Character can completely overcome a Disad easily and routinely, I do reserve the right alter the arrangement.

...that if a character will on average have their disadvantage triggered in more situations, they should get more points.

But not less? See this is where we disagree. If you're willing to up the price for more "easily triggered" but not lower it for "easily avoided" I think you're being hypocritical.


For example, in my DF games I've alter the way certain Disadvantages work, to make them fit better into the genre. Lecherousness is one of them, in my DF games it's become more of an economic hardship as it is largely a "town only" disadvantage.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

In my experience? No. While I'm less likely to ever try to seduce someone I'm not attracted, it has happened, and I didn't find it any more or less difficult. But that may be down to quirks of my psychology rather than a hard fast rule.

Maybe your skill is just so high that penalties don't matter?

It might also be done as like a conditional bonus, like you know how in Social Engineering you can do an assistant skill (like w/ acrobatic dodge) where if you pass a roll you get a bonus and if you fail it you get a penalty?

Maybe there could be some kind of will-based roll to feign attraction to someone, and success gives a bonus to sex appeal?

That way if your will is high enough that you're passing regardless of a penalty to the 1st roll then it isn't making any difference to the final 2nd roll which matters. But to someone with lower will than you, it might matter.

This could also be largely conditional to the personality of someone you're using sex appeal on:

1) some find others more appealing if that other person dislikes them
2) some find others more appealing if that other person likes them

In the 1st case, not conveying attraction to someone would actually be a BONUS ("he's not interested in me... what a challenge!") while in the 2nd case it would be a penalty ("he's not interested me... he has no taste!")

That might be dependent upon self esteem of the target. Those with low self esteem could be accepting of a lack of others' interest, and maybe even suspicious of others' interest? Sex appeal roll might represent passively trying to be charming without actually making a pass or seeming interested, as opposed to actively trying to charm someone and making passes at them?

Those with high self esteem could be more accepting of others' seeming attraction to them, and angered by disinterest?

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

A GM should not allow Thalassophobia in either case. In the first it would make for an unplayable character, in the second it would never come up. A disadvantage that does not come up is not worth any points.

In the first case, I can absolutely think of some campaigns where it would work. It's crippling, yes, but we've got plenty of other disadvantages that can also be crippling. It wouldn't be a normal campaign by any means, and it likely wouldn't be appropriate for many campaigns, but it's certainly not something that should be blanket-banned from all campaigns.

In the second case, I think it's an extremely bad GM call to say you can't have Thalassophobia in such a case even if it's reduced to a zero-point feature.

...And you kinda completely ignored my main point, which was that some phobias explicitly have different costs in different settings where they are more or less likely to come up. I only used Thalassophobia as how you might extend that to other phobias as well, using the precedent that the RAW already established.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Plane

Maybe your skill is just so high that penalties don't matter?

/self deprecating laughter intensifies

Maybe there could be some kind of will-based roll to feign attraction to someone, and success gives a bonus to sex appeal?

Acting Skill asks why it is being ignored here.

Those with high self esteem could be more accepting of others' seeming attraction to them, and angered by disinterest?

It might just be me, but my experience says reality actually works opposite this.

At least with straight women and men hitting on them. I can't really speak to the other 3 avenues of attraction with the same depth or breadth of experience.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

IIs there going to be a difference? That's down to the GM putting 'desirable' targets into the adventure. The GM shouldn't put more sexy targets in just because the Character is a bisexual Lech than if they were a monsexual Lech.

Lets look at the wording again.

Make a self-control roll whenever you have more than the briefest contact with an appealing member of the sex you find attractive – at -5 if this person is Handsome/Beautiful, or at -10 if Very Handsome/Very Beautiful

As I read it, Lecherousness is not "every so often the GM plants an attractive character in your path and you make a fool of yourself." That would be worth -1 to -5 and be great for a character like Richard Sharpe. Lecherousness is "you are constantly on the prowl" and in any group of a dozen members of the appropriate sex you should find at least one target. With Lecherousness, its the player's responsibility to get busy whenever they are in the presence of a group of the right sex. Hitting on or groping people becomes your character's default behaviour, not something they do in special situations created by the GM.

The self-control rolls are for situations like "yes, he does have a nice butt and is bent over in front of me, but I can't cop a feel, we need his mother's signature." After the death of Arlene Richard Feynmann kept being thrown out of housing for bothering his host's friends/relatives/spouse/children, and Isaac Asimov once propositioned his interviewer on live TV that his wife was watching. Those are real people not larger-than-life characters in an adventure story!

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

The self-control rolls are for situations like "yes, he does have a nice butt and is bent over in front of me, but I can't cop a feel, we need his mother's signature." After the death of Arlene Richard Feynmann kept being thrown out of housing for bothering his host's friends/relatives/spouse/children, and Isaac Asimov once propositioned his interviewer on live TV that his wife was watching. Those are real people not larger-than-life characters in an adventure story!

I was going to mention those sound like people with some form of sex addiction, but then I realized that's more-or-less what GURPS Lecherousness is. It's a general problem with the various self-control Disadvantages in GURPS that, even at the (15) level, they don't represent a mere tendency, but a serious disorder. For a character with Lecherousness (15), if a person they find physically attractive has a gun pressed to their head and has explicitly told them not to move or make a sound, there's roughly a 1 in 20 chance the character will make a pass anyway.

As for if being bisexual makes Lecherousness more problematic, I think it would only really come up rarely enough to not make a difference. In most situations where you're interacting with other people outside of combat, there are likely to be a decent number of people around, and probably a mix of male and female - a Lecherous character is going to be potentially triggered regardless of sexuality. Only when you're interacting with a single character, or some same-sex group, is the bisexual character more likely to be triggered than a heterosexual or homosexual one.