Re: On being Feared
 

Who says that it's supposed to be much of a restriction?

It's worth 0 points, apparently, so it's not even a -10% Limitation.

What it is is flavour, not a meaningful restriction for a character interested only in such typical adventuring mainstays as power, effectiveness and loot.

I've got a lot of high Reaction bonus characters in my fantasy campaign, most of whom have followers, hench-persons and hirelings aplenty. There is a lot of difference in how the followers perceive the characters, according to how the Reaction bonuses are accrued and several of them actually are friendly with their lowliest followers, the result of having high Charisma and traits such as Broad-Minded, Charitable or Selfless. In fact, with high Appearance, high Charisma, a really friendly attitude and a couple of extra levels of touch-based Charisma that comes with a Quirk that the affection goes both ways, one PC loves each and every one of his followers and they all love him.

Others, who have Reputations as great warlords, high Status and/or other, less intimate sources of Reaction bonuses, may have more traditional and distant relationships with their underlings. If anyone had Social Regard (Feared), I expect that they'd have even less intimacy with their retinue, but they'd have the same rock-solid Loyalty as anyone else who paid for really high Reaction bonuses.

Re: On being Feared
 

That's a weird place. On the one hand, they usually aren't in average life. On the other hand, games are about exceptional people. Folks with good social advantages should expect to slowly pick up friends and loyal associates throughout their game. Combat is known for making associates into brothers, even without heroic figures involved.

Re: On being Feared
 

No. It isn't. But then acquiring hirelings isn't the only form of human interaction.

Re: On being Feared
 

I think that analysis is completely unsound.

You are treating GURPS as if it has restrictions ONLY when they were given a point value that was explicitly marked by defining a formal limitation. But GURPS has all kinds of cases where a trait is worth 0 points because it contains an advantage and a disadvantage, neither of which is assigned a point value of any kind (such as "neither has nor uses Fatigue" for machines), or where two traits are given the same value when each is superior in one way and inferior in another, neither way being defined as plus or minus so many points or such and such a percentage. To demand that there be an explicitly status point value or percentage in this case is to impose a standard of proof that is simply incompatible with the RAW.

(I would note, in particular, that I have done a lot of that kind of informal balancing in defining perks and quirks, with editorial approval.)

So let's look at Social Regard in comparison to a couple of other traits:

Social Regard costs 5/level; so does Status. So why aren't they the same trait? Well, on one hand, Social Regard is better, in that you don't have to pay a cost of living to sustain it, or face penalties for failing to do so, or need to get it free as a side effect of Rank; that's a clear improvement, even though it's not defined as plus some percentage. But that would make Social Regard clearly better than Status for the same cost! For that not to be true, Social Regard must also be limited in comparison to Status, even though that liimit is not marked by (-N points/level) or (-n%).

Social Regard costs 5/level; so does Charisma. So why aren't they the same trait? As evileeyore put it, Charisma requires interaction, and Social Regard does not; or, put another way, Charisma is used actively, but Social Regard can be used passively. That makes Social Regard better: It gets you the benefits of Charisma in a wider range of situations without costing any more. Again, for this not to be the case, there must be some limit in comparison with Charisma, even though that limit has no explicit point value.

With Venerated, that limit is that, on one hand, the benefits it gets you are specifically those of being taken care of, and on the other, that you can't stop people from taking care of you even when you need to take risks or endure discomfort. With Respected, the benefits are specifically those of being deferred to, and the problems are those of being deferred to, surrounded by elaborate ceremony and kowtowing, and so on—and those can be a burden, as shown by the custom of monarchs assuming an alternate identity as General So and So or the Count of Whosis to escape the protocol of monarchy.

And for Feared? Well, the benefits you get from it are specifically those of being feared, which in this case are representing by "as if you had used Intimidation skill." And the limits are those that you are dealing with people who DO fear you. Those limits ought to be substantial, as much so as those faced by an elderly person who is carefully shielded from risk and discomfort.

Now, I may not have persuaded you with this argument. But, if not, I suggest that you simply can't answer the question I'm asking, because you don't accept its premise. And I would prefer not to argue further over its validity; if you can't accept it, fine, I don't need to change your mind, but then you aren't going to be able to answer the question "What is the nature of the restrictions imposed by being Feared?" and that's what I'm asking here.

Re: On being Feared
 

No. But it's the form of interaction I'm discussing here, because it's the one I'm going to have to figure out how to represent, ten days from now.

Re: On being Feared
 

I still don't understand why you're so hung up on there having to be a restriction.

Do you apply restrictions to Combat Reflexes because it's inherently better than the sum of it's disparate traits?


False. See above mention of Combat Reflexes versus Enhanced Defenses.

Re: On being Feared
 

Then don't worry about it. All you have to do is roleplay the hirelings as slightly fearful. The biggest downside is that they'll be worried about telling their boss any bad news if they've never done it before.

Re: On being Feared
 

I don't see why I need to justify there "having" to be a restriction. On one hand, there clearly IS a restriction; compare the descriptions of Respected and Venerated. On the other hand, the argument that that restriction HAS TO be trivial because it isn't explicitly stated to be worth some number of points is just wrong; there are lots of examples in GURPS of informal point balancing because helpful and harmful aspects of traits, and it's sufficient for my purposes that this is allowable. Icelander is the one who's arguing that the restriction CAN ONLY be trivial because it's not (explicitly stated to be) worth points, and I'm saying that he's wrong.

Both Respected and Venerated explicitly name ways in which having that form of Social Regard can hinder the person who has it, not just in a roleplaying way (where the GM has other people stand aside, look down, and so on) but in a practical, can't get stuff done way. And that seems a more likely parallel to Feared than Combat Reflexes does.

Re: On being Feared
 

Yes it is. Sometimes it is fear of disappointing someone one admire, sometimes it is fear of a trauma dumped into a young parishioner by unskillful enthusiasts (that is exagerrated but does exist), or fear of loss of autonomy, or just plain fear. There are so many senses that one can compose a theological tome on it.

I think a better example of what you are after though is from Hollywood. Captain von Trapp (the movie one) definitely had Feared from practically everyone except possibly the Baroness and Max (though Maria could frighten him when she finally loses her temper, "I am NOT finished, Captain"). But that is an extension of Social Regard and both his children and his enemies fear him.

Victor Lazlo was something of a scary dude too because of his bearing.

You can find it even in modern shows. Lerroy Jethro Gibbs always has people looking behind to see if he is there.

In literature Honor Harrington is of course feared. But she is mostly confined by naval CoH so you can predict fairly well when she will stop killing people at least. Victor Cachet though he is sort of, good, is really scary because no one can predict when he will stop.

The shades of fear are not incompatible. A child who first fears his father simply because he is physically stronger may continue to do so when he is now physically weaker, and the fear is a function of respect. In between the fear of raw power evolves into the fear of recognized authority.

A RL example is Frederick the Great commenting on how he could walk without fear through a camp full of men half of whom were shanghaied from foreign countries (and thus had no reason to be loyal to him and plenty to hate a man who had ruined their lives) and anyone who hated him enough to commit suicide could kill him, but no one would think of it. In this case it was not love and devotion except among his most faithful followers but discipline. Frederick was not a sadist in the sense of glorying in causing hurt to others but he was not a nice man, nor a lovable one. Seydlitz was more someone to attract devotion. In the first place fear mostly meant habit. In the case of Seydlitz, probably some of his men did fear him because they sincerly revered him.

Re: On being Feared
 

People won't tell you things. That can be anything from,"You can be the one that tells Comrade Stalin that the Fascists are coming over the border next week, I am sure your widow will be glad to have such a patriotic husband," to,"How can I tell my father a gentile wants to marry me?" Both Comrade Stalin and the father have good reason to want to know these things and both might end up not knowing.