Lecherousness & Bisexuality

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Yes, but the point is that what he's doing IS definitely making a pass. That was spelled out from the start; the lyrics called him "wolf" and the woman "mouse." And yet making a pass does not seem to entail that he leaps on her immediately, out in public, in front of possible witnesses who might defend her, object, or start a scandal; he clearly waited until he had her alone. "You must make a pass" does not entail "you must make a pass immediately."

I rather think that "you must X" where X contains no timing information, clearly implies "immediately X". If not immediately, when?

Of course "using whatever wiles and skills you can bring to bear" seems like a clear permission (and indeed obligation) to open your obligatory pass with a degree of subtlety if your character is capable of recognizing that as situationally appropriate.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

When I wrote the original GURPS Steampunk, I said that Lecherousness didn't mean you had to make an obvious pass that would cause scandal and create instant social penalties; what you had to do was become focused on pursuing the target of your admiration—for example, you might strive to be alone with them so you could declare your interest. Being strongly motivated does not necessarily make you an idiot.

Given that even a long-term Obsession like "become the President" is only worth 10 points, and a short-term Obsession (The example given is "assassinate someone," but we could easily substitute "bed this person") is only worth 5 points, and a fulfilled Obsession results in substituting a new goal, and Lecherousness doesn't require justifying every single action as a way of obtaining your goal, it seems like doing Lecherousness this way would give more points for a less restrictive disadvantage.

Being strongly motivated doesn't make you an idiot, but a 15 point disadvantage often does. That's Odious Personal Habit (Eats Other Sapients) level of points. Or Social Stigma (Monster). Or extreme versions of Bestial. Or even just enough negative Reputation to get a -3 to reactions (A whole reaction level) from pretty much everybody in the world, or about the same as Hideous appearance. A 15 point social disadvantage seems to be a pretty serious deal. I see Lecherousness as being worth 15 points because you make these passes whether it's appropriate or not. You can still try to be sly or subtle about it (Assuming you have the skill), but being able to always put it off until the least disadvantageous moment seems extremely generous for such an expensive disadvantage.

I'd say putting it off until later would require passing their SC roll. That seems more fair.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

I'd say putting it off until later would require passing their SC roll. That seems more fair.

Passing the roll normally means you don't need to roll for an entire day.

Maybe something like a failed roll means you must make a will roll every single second and a failure means saying or doing something prurient?

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Plane

If they're doing that every single time they see an attractive person then they're going to be pretty busy.

This isn't a disadvantage of "I'm in love with this particular person" or any other kind of particular obsession.

"Making a pass" is apparently pretty blatent if https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_a_pass_at is right: "unambiguously indicate interest in sexual activity"

That's not generally what you do in a campaign to "win" people via romance.

Right. Especially if your campaign to win a person by romance involves, say, taking them out to dinner. Because a lot of waiting staff, for example, or other diners tend to be reasonably attractive. No-one likes their date to make a pass at the waiter.

The GURPS disadvantage "lecherous" as written does not describe a person who always has a romantic campaign in progress, nor even a "prolific and remarkably direct ladies' man". It describes a person who constantly makes passes without any regard for circumstances or appropriateness. For example, the text allows no exception for the attractive person who is married to a formidable spouse or who has said "no" before. It describes a guy who harasses his secretary daily and all the women in the typing pool, and who makes passes at his bosses' wives at every office party.

Perhaps it wasn't meant to, but that is what it does.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Plane

Passing the roll normally means you don't need to roll for an entire day.

What I meant was, passing the self-control roll means they don't have to make a pass right then (Since they're not required to take any action), but they're still free to do so later when they think they might get away with it. It seems like better roleplaying, with the disadvantage posing some increased difficulty (The risk of making a social faux pas right then and there) while still pursuing the character's urges.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Right. Especially if your campaign to win a person by romance involves, say, taking them out to dinner. Because a lot of waiting staff, for example, or other diners tend to be reasonably attractive. No-one likes their date to make a pass at the waiter.

The GURPS disadvantage "lecherous" as written does not describe a person who always has a romantic campaign in progress, nor even a "prolific and remarkably direct ladies' man". It describes a person who constantly makes passes without any regard for circumstances or appropriateness. For example, the text allows no exception for the attractive person who is married to a formidable spouse or who has said "no" before. It describes a guy who harasses his secretary daily and all the women in the typing pool, and who makes passes at his bosses' wives at every office party.

Perhaps it wasn't meant to, but that is what it does.

One issue is that the difference between the Asimov approach and the Flashman approach (someone please suggest a real-world example) might be too much for the average bookish 14 year old reading GURPS for the first time. And the two approaches raise some deep questions which are maybe beyond the scope of a 4-cent-a-word roleplaying game (are they basically the same thing, and people who use the seduction approach just have better social skills and more patience, or is one less about sex than dominance? Construction workers who catcall passersby are not really expecting them to come over for a quickie on that pallet of drywall). I know we had trouble with the uses of Sex Appeal to get things out of people without promising anything specific in return. That just was not a strategy which we had seen in real life!

Its possible that back when the disadvantage was written nobody had decided that there were two basic approaches.

The whole point of the disadvantage is that you sometimes make advances on "the attractive person who is married to a formidable spouse." Asimov's groping of female workers at his publishers and fans at conventions were widely known in his social circles, and I mentioned the causes of Feynmann's housing troubles which never made it into "Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynmann."

[Agemegos]

I evidently don't know enough about either Flashman or Asimov.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I evidently don't know enough about either Flashman or Asimov.

Alec Nevala-Lee's Astounding has a good summary of what was between the lines of Asimov's memoirs and volumes of limericks and what was widely known in the right social circles (there were, circa the 1960s, fans who volunteered to keep between Asimov and young women on escalators, and Asimov's superiors at the Philadelphia Naval Yard knew he was popping bras and pinching bottoms every time he had the chance ... what Heinlein thought, while he was on a hero kick to recruit more female engineers but also in an open marriage with his co-author Leslyn and feeling some stirrings towards Lt. Virginia Gerstenfeld, would be interesting to read).

Flashman ... remember how he met Elisabet? He was billeted on a Scottish millowner's family, looked the women over and decided she was the best prospect, and after a few days he took her for a ride (he had overestimated her discretion and underestimated the family's ability to make him marry her). On the retreat from Kabul he slips into the tent of another officer's wife because he sold his sex slave a while ago and hasn't been able to visit the city and proposition a Pashtun lady for some weeks. On the road from New Orleans to Santa Fe he got bored with his current lover so started sleeping with her slaves. He seduced a virgin princess headed to meet her fiancee on a sail from Mexico to Trieste and had to run down the gangplank ahead of paunchy Adliger trying to draw their sabres.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Perhaps it wasn't meant to, but that is what it does.

I sometimes wonder whether the extreme writing of many Disadvantages is assuming that the table will never enforce them as harshly as they're written so they need to overcorrect. Especially when author-types come in and argue that you obviously shouldn't enforce said disadvantages in line with their actual text...

[Mark Skarr]

At a base of -15 points, Lecherousness is meant to be seriously inconvenient. It's the same value as "Compulsive Liar."

I always looked at it through the lens of:
A. If unsuccessful, it's going to cause awkward social situations as the character flirts, possibly inappropriately, with the object of their focus and, at best, distances them as an ally, making the other characters have to work harder to repair the damage.

B. If successful, it's going to split the party for an undetermined amount of time, removing, at least, the affected character and the object of their focus from being available. Potentially exposing them to unknown dangers while they're indisposed. And, depending on the story, potentially unwanted heirs.

As for "making a pass," to me, that does not require any crassness. In Georgian or Victorian times, it could simply be an undue, and inappropriate, focus on said person, with veiled and suggestive language. Possibly leading to some estrangement, or, if handled very improperly (and outside of one's station), serious social and legal repercussions.

When James sets his sights on the daughter of a wealthy business tycoon, he does not walk up to her and say "Hi, I'm Bender, baby. Wanna do it?" No, he approaches her and engages her in polite conversation (hoping his Mind-Numbing Magnetism quirk doesn't royally screw him, again). He chats her up and probes her personality for "weaknesses." He finds her interests and hopes he can direct the conversation towards those topics he is qualified in, or, those he is not, so he can have her tell him about them.

However, if he walks into a frat party, and spots someone he finds interesting, he may well walk up to her and say "Hi, I'm James, baby. Wanna do it?" Because it's way more appropriate at that venue. And, honestly, may be more successful.

In the first case, James is much less likely to pursue any other women at the party as the heiress is (likely) the most interesting person there, and he will be exerting a considerable amount of effort into seducing her. In the second case, he is likely to get the points he paid for Resistant to Disease (Immunity), Extra HT and Extra FP out of the indiscretions he's involved in for the evening as he will probably bounce from liaison to liaison.

Lecherousness is a -15 point disadvantage. It's meant to be serious. It's in the company of disadvantages like:
Alcoholism
Cannot Speak
Combat Paralysis
Sadism
Severe Delusions ("I am Napoleon!")
Social Stigma: Monster

Another issue I see is with people thinking that you only have to make a pass if you fail the roll. Your character should be pursuing people constantly. Only making the roll when they need to behave. James is always flirting. Always probing. Even when he's not doing it in direct pursuit of someone, he's always "on." He only tries to resist when, as he puts it, "it's time to put on my monkey suit and entertain the Chaos Gods."