Disads: the Second Best CP Deal in GURPS

[AlexanderHowl]

Well, Enemies can go after a specific target and avoid other targets (or a group of PCs can share the same enemy)

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Well, Enemies can go after a specific target and avoid other targets (or a group of PCs can share the same enemy)

"My beef isn't with you lot. This only needs to be between him and me." If the enemy is honorable, he might even admire (and be willing to forgive) their misguided loyalty.

If they choose to stick with the PC when his enemy shows up, that's on them. I personally do not enforce party cohesion. I certainly favor it - but I once ordered a missile strike against a fellow PC.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Dalin

With that said, I find Trickster to be fairly annoying...

Agreed, but more because I find it becomes the 'excuse' for poor behavior on a Player's part.

Similarly, in a zoomed in dungeon, it might take multiple play sessions for a day to pass. I prefer things that are linked to session time: once per session, or something like that. Then it can be inserted more organically.

Yeah, if I allowed it, I'd probably swap it to "per session".

Originally Posted by Rupert

With enemies that one CP has, it's not about mucnkinism. The problem is that the enemy goes after the PCs that's bought them, and the rest of the party closes ranks around that PC...

Y'all realize that Enemies need not be the type to attack a PC directly yeah? They can go after the PC in different ways, socially, legally, hiring goons, etc...

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Having closed ranks and fought off the enemy, they have now made an enemy of that enemy too, and as it's 'in play' they get no points for having done so. Nobody need have ill or even slightly munchkinny intentions for this to occur.

Fair point. If the GM does it right, though, this should translate to more scary fun for everybody. This is also a great example of why disads should be discussed as a group ahead of time. You can preserve some of the surprise but still discuss it in broad terms to make sure everybody is on the same page.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

The "everybody gains one character's disad" thing would probably work smoother with one of the options where disads didn't give character points.

Actually, a lot of things about gaining/losing disads would work smoother than way.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

No they aren't. There is nothing in that combo that says "Hey, go break some laws!"

Greed.
"However, it is almost a foregone conclusion that you will eventually do something illegal" and that is for characters who also have Honesty!

Also part of Greed is this "Make a selfcontrol roll any time riches are offered – as payment for fair work, gains from adventure, spoils of crime, or just bait. If you fail, you do whatever it takes to get the payoff."

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I don't know where this has come from*, but I've noticed a trend the last few years of people blowing Disadvantages up to be more deadly, unforgiving, or inconveniencing than they should be.

You can see what the disadvantages are just by reading the rules. Arguably many of them are more unforgiving than what "they should be", but that is a different discussion.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Andreas

You can see what the disadvantages are just by reading the rules. Arguably many of them are more unforgiving than what "they should be", but that is a different discussion.

Yeah, but even the clearest writing leaves room for interpretation. Some folks interpret everything in the harshest possible light. I don't.

So, considering Greed, I don't interpret the "spoils of crime" to mean that you need to roll to resist holding up every establishment you walk by or walk into. In those cases, riches have not been "offered." If someone offers to hire you to commit a crime for a sweet payoff, then you'd certainly need to roll. But to me, the disadvantage doesn't read like you're constantly resisting your urge to rob everybody.

[Armin]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I don't know where this has come from*, but I've noticed a trend the last few years of people blowing Disadvantages up to be more deadly, unforgiving, or inconveniencing than they should be.

Really? Huh. Since I started playing GURPS, I've always found most of the disadvantages, as written, so incredibly crippling that I have a terrible time choosing any that I'd be willing to play a character with. I have no desire at all to play characters so broken that they can't function properly.

I do not find that most disadvantages return enough points to make up for the dysfunction they inflict.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Armin

Really? Huh. Since I started playing GURPS, I've always found most of the disadvantages, as written, so incredibly crippling that I have a terrible time choosing any that I'd be willing to play a character with. I have no desire at all to play characters so broken that they can't function properly.

I do not find that most disadvantages return enough points to make up for the dysfunction they inflict.

Yeah, same. Some just play the game differently, but it always seemed to me that most of the RAW Disadvantages really handicap a character. Sometime a concept might call for it, but I'd rather avoid marking most of my own for-play builds with them. In our games, we usually allowed Quirk-level forms for almost all the disads, and either a generous (or no) limit on Quirks.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Dalin

Yeah, but even the clearest writing leaves room for interpretation. Some folks interpret everything in the harshest possible light. I don't.

So, considering Greed, I don't interpret the "spoils of crime" to mean that you need to roll to resist holding up every establishment you walk by or walk into. In those cases, riches have not been "offered." If someone offers to hire you to commit a crime for a sweet payoff, then you'd certainly need to roll. But to me, the disadvantage doesn't read like you're constantly resisting your urge to rob everybody.

Remember that the example character also has Impulsiveness which means doing the first thing that comes to mind whether it's smart or not, unless they have another disadvantage that would dissuade that behaviour. And as Overconfidence is involved the character also firmly believes themselves capable of doing whatever they decide to do within reason, without super powers or being a combat monster they probably don't expect to be able to take on an army on their own.

As far as getting bad ideas, Curiosity provides plenty. Remember that the disadvantage Curiosity is not just "I wonder what is in there" or "what happens if I do X", but "I will take a look in there" or "I'm going to do X" even if signs point to somewhat bad things. With Impulsiveness the character needs a very compelling reason not to do so and Overconfidence pushes that even further as they believe themselves capable of handling any ordinary situation and many extraordinary ones.

This is the character who says "I'll just take a quick look at that Medusa, it'll be fine" and firmly believes it.