Steve Jackson Games Forums - [SE] Sanitized Metabolism: how useful is +1 in in 'close confines', like 'elevators'?

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)

- GURPS (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

Re: [SE] Sanitized Metabolism: how useful is +1 in in 'close confines', like 'elevato

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1851081)

PCs are still affected by Influencing PCs, and it's still bad RP to routinely ignore the setting and its inhabitants.
Also, it doesn't matter what explanation you use for the partial immunity - GURPS cares about effects, not justifications.

I agree. I actually prefer games were PCs explicitly aren't immune to social influence or take some penalty from blatantly ignoring successful social actions directed against them. Otherwise it can become largely pointless to even give NPCs social abilities. I've had way too many bad experiences with what you're describing over the years. To be fair though some of it was caused by GMs abusing the social conflicts rules in their games but some was just asinine behavior. Though I do think justifications can matter in play for those fiddly situations that can come up but are too situational to bother statting out.

Re: [SE] Sanitized Metabolism: how useful is +1 in in 'close confines', like 'elevato

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1851077)

Call me weird...

Okay... you're weird. :D

But Seriously, I think a strong dislike of perfumes is more a Quirk for an individual character than an overall problem. Most people like perfumes, colognes, etc just not people that drench themselves in them or try to use them as a substitute for bathing. The latter would be OPHs.