[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Low Self-Image

[johndallman]

Low Self-Image [-10] is a mundane mental disadvantage. You lack self-confidence, to a degree that interferes with your abilities under adverse circumstances. It seems to have appeared in Compendium I for GURPS 3e.

Whenever you believe that you're handicapped by circumstances, correctly or not, or that others are expecting you to fail, you suffer -3 to all skill rolls. This applies in addition to all other modifiers for genuine adverse circumstances. For example, an actor with this disadvantage might be very comfortable making Performance rolls on the set of the soap opera they appear in daily. On stage in a theatre, performing in a language they have at Accented (-2), in a style of play that isn't part of their culture (-3), with a director who feels they've been lumbered with a soap star and is thus a bit hostile (-1), the -3 for this disadvantage would definitely apply, in addition to -6 of other penalties. It's incompatible with Overconfidence.

This disadvantage is rarely mentioned in GURPS supplements. It appears as an option on just a few templates, for young or introverted types, or people whose world has been overturned, while Bio-Tech can genengineer it away as mental instability at TL9. Horror uses it for guilty secrets, and in several mental disorders; Madness Dossier uses it for people with extra personalities, and as a weapon. There's a quirk-level version in Power-Ups 6, while Powers makes it a possible result of Awe and Confusion, and the same can happen with Shocking Revelations in Steampunk. Zombies makes it an option for Screaming Victims, as if they didn't have enough problems.

Low Self-Image is a really bad idea for people who do dangerous and exciting things deliberately, but it is worth having in the game for people who are not suited to an adventuring life, and as a cause of suffering. It would likely go well with Confused or the Methodical quirk, and as a disadvantage acquired through a failed aging roll.

Has Low Self-Image been interesting (or frustrating) in your games?

[vicky_molokh]

I would argue that it's either badly designed or improperly priced. In RPGs as typically GMed, almost all rolls requested happen under handicapped circumstances, with a noteworthy expectation of failure etc. - if a task is routine (e.g. 'in your shop'), it's much, much more often allowed to succeed without a roll. So de facto this trait is 'penalty to almost all rolls', and the fair price of that is not a mere ten points.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I would argue that it's either badly designed or improperly priced. In RPGs as typically GMed, almost all rolls requested happen under handicapped circumstances, with a noteworthy expectation of failure etc. - if a task is routine (e.g. 'in your shop'), it's much, much more often allowed to succeed without a roll. So de facto this trait is 'penalty to almost all rolls', and the fair price of that is not a mere ten points.

I agree with you, and suspect that even if this disadvantage only applied a -1 to rolls when it triggered my players wouldn't take it (and I almost certainly wouldn't either). As written the only use I can see for it is to build an NPC that's great at their job, but whose performance collapses in the field, probably as a 'booby trap' hireling for the PCs - great CV, interviews well, great references, chokes up in the field.

[Icelander]

I've used it for NPCs and seen it with at least one PC and one significant NPC in a campaign where I was a player.

The PC is specifically meant to be afraid of her own potential, due to some mysterious gift, and uncomfortable in her own skin. The intended dramatic arc for 'Season 1', as suggested by the player, is that the PC should learn to accept her unknown destiny and buy off Low Self-Image.

The way I interpret the penalties is that it doesn't apply to every single roll which matters, but only for those where the PC can get in her own way, worry about whether she's good enough and estimate the odds of failure. Active Defences and even simple, reactive attacks (in the course of carrying out someone else's tactical plan) don't necessarily trigger Low Self-Image, as they occur without any opportunity to think about the possibility of failure. But don't ever put someone with Low Self-Image in charge, tell them to make a critical sniper shot or have them duel someone with time to think beforehand.

An ally with enough Psychology (Applied) and/or Empathy to identify the problem and the Diplomacy or Leadership skill to talk the character with Low Self-Image into feeling confident about a simple, discrete area of responsibility, that is obviously within their competence, is invaluable.

Alice Talbot (PC) in the Caribbean by Night campaign doesn't really have anyone for that, which I guess is fine, as her dramatic arc is meant to be rising to the occasion and accepting the role of Hero, without needing anyone else to be responsible for her.

Sherilynn 'Cherry' Bell (NPC) in Jade Serenity, however, is orders of magnitude more effective when she is led, supported and encouraged, which is good, because she is a mental patient with awesome superpowers and one PC is her effective supervisor and agent handler, one PC is a psychiatrist assigned to monitor her and one PC is a) Special Forces trained as an instructor and small unit leader, b) has supersenses complete with Empathy, and c) cares deeply about her. So, her Low Self-Image (as well as, frankly, numerous other Mental Disadvantages) are problems that the PCs need to manage in order for Ms. Bell to function as an intelligence asset (with superpowers) and obstacles to overcome if her personal story is to have a happy ending.

[Gumby Bush]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The way I interpret the penalties is that it doesn't apply to every single roll which matters, but only for those where the PC can get in her own way, worry about whether she's good enough and estimate the odds of failure. Active Defences and even simple, reactive attacks (in the course of carrying out someone else's tactical plan) don't necessarily trigger Low Self-Image, as they occur without any opportunity to think about the possibility of failure. But don't ever put someone with Low Self-Image in charge, tell them to make a critical sniper shot or have them duel someone with time to think beforehand.

An ally with enough Psychology (Applied) and/or Empathy to identify the problem and the Diplomacy or Leadership skill to talk the character with Low Self-Image into feeling confident about a simple, discrete area of responsibility, that is obviously within their competence, is invaluable.

Huh. I have been interpreting it as the others have been, but yours fits way better with the point value (and actually letting it see use by PCs).

I think it is likely a pretty common disadvantage in reality, particularly with youths. I help teach karate: off the top of my head, there are two or three kids--out of, I don't know, 50?--for whom half of teaching them something new seems to be getting them past this. Having helped train new employees in cashiering and such, I've seen it there with some highschoolers, too.

I have a quirk-level intolerance of Low Self-Image: "If you're going to sin, sin boldly"--M. Luther (oddly, I may also have a quirk-level version of Low Self-Image, applying only to quite novel situations, but that may just be familiarity penalties and such).

[martinl]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I would argue that it's either badly designed or improperly priced.

Possibly. Additionally, folks with low self image tend to pass important tasks off to the authorities, so make poor adventurers.

[Brandy]

Do people think that the pricing would be improved if the disadvantage were given a control roll? That makes it act more like "choking" in sports, where one's performance is usually good, but in some -- not all -- pressure situations you can experience an unexplained drop in performance due to the inability to regulate the negative self-talk.

[ericthered]

I like Icelander's interpretation. If I had to use it, I'd apply it to situations where the character was doing things they didn't do often, and when they had an unusual amount of spotlight thrown on them.

I haven't seen this disadvantage used much, but I'm finding that I want to (this series often has that effect on me).

[khorboth]

I had this on a PC once. We used it much like Icelander. It was a supervillain campaign. My character was a really combat-effective werewolf who also had stress atavism and a variety of other mental problems.

The leader had, in the backstory, pulled my character out of an animistic state and so earned his total devotion. If boss said I could do it, I was fine. If boss didn't say I could do it... Less fine.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Brandy

Do people think that the pricing would be improved if the disadvantage were given a control roll? That makes it act more like "choking" in sports, where one's performance is usually good, but in some -- not all -- pressure situations you can experience an unexplained drop in performance due to the inability to regulate the negative self-talk.

Probably a good idea.

Originally Posted by ericthered

I like Icelander's interpretation. If I had to use it, I'd apply it to situations where the character was doing things they didn't do often, and when they had an unusual amount of spotlight thrown on them.

Exactly. The one time I thought about it seriously I figured it would mostly end up as an additional penalty on default rolls and unusual skill usages, not anything the Character does frequently.

However the Player decided it was too "GM Fiaty" and went another way.