Are quirks officially counted as disadvantages?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I've been running GURPS for over 20 years now and I've never had a player submit more disads than they wanted to roleplay, in fact, outside of genres like Supers and such, I have a hard time getting players to take more than 30 points worth of disads.

Good for you, because you've had sensible players. Sensible is a different axis of measurement from "munchkin" by the way.

I've got players that are too creative for their own good. I don't doubt their ability to track 180 points in disadvantages and make sure to punish themselves with them on a session-by-session basis (or even more frequently) - and one of them I'm not sure he could spend that bonus 180 points in a munchkinny way to save his life.

He would be inadvertently scene stealing, however, by needing to be carried around by the other PCs. Or he would get abandoned and basically dropped from the game by the other PCs, or he'd be more handicapped by them than the campaign premise was really set up to accommodate. Either way, someone - either the player with 180 points in disads, the other players, or the GM is going to have a headache. Which isn't fun, and that is kind of the point of gaming.

Some genres just don't have room for characters with tons of disadvantages on a recurring basis, and I mean this even when the character doesn't get ANY points back for them. Net point value is a side issue that distracts in these conversations.

Most kinds of military, all special ops short of special ops comedy, super spy agent, many modes of "Genre fantasy" (but certainly not all!)... all of these tend to get deformed or outright self-destruct by the addition of a character with a high disadvantage burden - mostly because characters with big disads, strongly penalized attributes, or a huge pile of little disads are damned unlikely to have got themselves into the situation in the first place, and may be unable to pull their own weight to get themselves out of it.

I put a disad limit on my games like I put any other character creation guideline (including total point value!) - it's a soft limit, intended as a framework for the players so they don't spin out of control or get side-tracked from the concept everyone agreed to. Disadvantage limits don't replace the GM reviewing their character sheets any more than saying "No spells" replaces reviewing the character sheets, it's instead meant to filter out the really bad ideas that were generated mostly because the player didn't focus. Putting limits in character creation means you TRUST your players to actually follow them. Adversarial GM/Player relationships quickly lead to players ignoring or ruleslawyering their way around limits - co-operative relationships thrive on staying within the agreed upon limits as an artistic challenge.

Disad limits (along with all the OTHER guidelines I set when putting together a campaign) are a bit like spam filters for my players really bad ideas. If they come up with something that they feel needs to be Cursed and Blind, and they actually want to play rather than sort of threw together on a whim, I feel pretty confident that any of my players would approach me and say "I know you said maximum -50 points, but I think this is really cool, and I think I can make this work without ******* everyone else off." I'm not going to burn his character sheet just because I set a 50 point limit. Same thing, if I'm starting a 150 point game, and someone wants to play a 50 point (or a 250 point) character enough to actually ask me about the possibility, I'm not going to reject him out of hand. But saying "We'll be playing an 150 point game" means that I don't get the player sort of randomly submitting a 50 point or 250 point character because he sort of built one by accident.

I understand that your players don't do that. But I have to point out, I'm not GMing for your players.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by trooper6

So, either you are calling me a liar--which is rude...or you are making sweeping generalizations wherein you treat your biases as objective reality. []
Why do you have to turn this into, "People who use disad limits are bad GMs."

Ze's comment does not mention any specific person; why do you insist on taking it as a personal attack against yourself?

[rust]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Most kinds of military, all special ops short of special ops comedy, super spy agent, many modes of "Genre fantasy" (but certainly not all!)... all of these tend to get deformed or outright self-destruct by the addition of a character with a high disadvantage burden - mostly because characters with big disads, strongly penalized attributes, or a huge pile of little disads are damned unlikely to have got themselves into the situation in the first place, and may be unable to pull their own weight to get themselves out of it.

I see your point, but in my experience a purely numerical limit does not really
help much to solve this problem, because a character with disadvantages be-
low the limit can be unsuitable for a specific genre or setting while a charac-
ter with disadvantages above the limit can still fit into the genre or setting.

Therefore I prefer to give the players a kind of "to do list" describing the phy-
sical, mental and social abilities a character needs to take part in the specific
campaign. Beyond that, the players can choose whatever disadvantages they
like, provided the result still fits into that basic framework.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Ze's comment does not mention any specific person; why do you insist on taking it as a personal attack against yourself?

Because he and I were in conversation with each other. And the conversation went like this:

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

That to me is a bad quote by you vainly trying to twist a writer's comment into justifying a "disad total" as RAW, instead of the dumb optional rule it actually is.

Disad limits are not RAW, they are an optional rule intended for bad gaming groups with GM vs. Player issues.

Originally Posted by trooper6

Now I think you go too far. I have always used disad limits. But the groups I've GM'd are not now, nor have they every been, "bad gaming groups with GM vs. Player issues."

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I'll stick to the line that Disad limits are an indication of a bad GM player dynamic.
The GM is either antagonistic, or he's gotten burned by Munchkin players in the past and he's ham handing his way instead of growing some b...sense and actually looking at the characters submitted.

He says, "GM's who do this are bad"
I say, "I do this, I'm not bad."
He says, "I maintain, GMs who do this are bad."

The first statement could easily be taken as not a personal attack--and I didn't take the first statement as a personal attack. But after I placed my person into the discourse by speaking from my personal experience (rather than in broad generalities)--after I said--"I am such a GM," he reiterated the statement, which then now becomes also personally directed towards me.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by trooper6

The first statement could easily be taken as not a personal attack--and I didn't take the first statement as a personal attack. But after I placed my person into the discourse by speaking from my personal experience (rather than in broad generalities)--after I said--"I am such a GM," he reiterated the statement, which then now becomes also personally directed towards me.

Your identification with [the] group does not make a sweeping generalization into a personal attack. But I'm going to ask the mods to decide, since this is not the first time this has come up.


Mods: the "That to me is a bad quote by you" part of Ze's comment was addressing a different person, it's not actually part of his convo with Trooper6.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Your identification with [the] group does not make a sweeping generalization a personal attack. But I'm going to ask the mods to decide, since this is not the first time this has come up.


Mods: the "That to me is a bad quote by you" part of Ze's comment was addressing a different person, it's not actually part of his convo with Trooper6.

I certainly don't think it is egregious enough to warrant punishment--note, I didn't PM mods to complain. I just wanted to alert Ze that his method of argument--sweeping generalizations and judgement aimed at denigrating other people's play style could be phrased in a some other way that was less aggressive.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by trooper6

This is rude. I always use disad limits, yet:

1) I have a great GM-player dynamic.
2) I am not antagonistic towards my players
3) Have never had a Munchkin player give me problems with disads
4) I always look at and approve submitted characters.

So, either you are calling me a liar--which is rude...or you are making sweeping generalizations wherein you treat your biases as objective reality. Also rude.

Not objective reality, I'm stating that the #2 item on your list is inconsistent with disad limits.

Now you may choose to not to believe that, but that just goes to the unknown unknows thread, it's not rude for me to point out truth.

I haven't heard any explanation from you why you'd hold hard to an optional disad limit rule at the cost of character creation and player involvement, you simply stated "Restrictions can be aids to creativity in much the same way that Shakespeare created magic while still adhering to the sonnet form." which statement reads as antagonistic and indicative of a power play control dynamic as all get out.

Originally Posted by trooper6

Because he and I were in conversation with each other.

I hadn't realized you were posting as zack_black, sock puppets are bad form you know. ;p

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Not objective reality, I'm stating that the #2 item on your list is inconsistent with disad limits.

Now you may choose to not to believe that, but that just goes to the unknown unknows thread, it's not rude for me to point out truth.p

It isn't truth, it is your opinion. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so--and certainly not for people who aren't you.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I haven't heard any explanation from you why you'd hold hard to an optional disad limit rule at the cost of character creation and player involvement, you simply stated "Restrictions can be aids to creativity in much the same way that Shakespeare created magic while still adhering to the sonnet form." which statement reads as antagonistic and indicative of a power play control dynamic as all get out.

I hold to the disad limit rule because it has never had a negative impact on character creation or player involvement in any of the games I have GM'd in all of the 22 years I've been GM'ing GURPS so why wouldn't I go with what is recommended in the book. My players appreciate knowing what the character creation guidelines are. That gives them building blocks to work with. Then they create awesome things. GM's oversee and determine certain things in a game. That is their job. Having responsibility to oversee certain things does not equal antagonism. When I was the facilitator for a support group, it was my responsibility to manage that discussion...that in no way meant I has an antagonistic relationship or some kind of power trip over the people in the support group.

If having starting point limits, or disad limits, or limits as to if a game were cinematic or realistic, or any of the other many things GMs decide ever caused problems, I'd think about doing something different. But it never has. I've continued to have rich and interesting PCs with players who are involved and happy...and I am happy to facilitate their fun and explore interesting stories.

Sometimes I've had problem players, but never has the problem had anything to do with starting point limits or disad limits. So why wouldn't I keep using the rules that are recommended? They have never caused problems, all players are treated equally, and players have a set of parameters to aid them in their creative process. Win-win all around. In my experience.

Now if you don't want Disad limits, and that works in your campaigns, good for you. I'm not going to judge your campaigns.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I'll stick to the line that Disad limits are an indication of a bad GM player dynamic.

I think many of us would disagree. The 40 point characters with a 20 point limit is not anything I personally would ever do, though.

I *do* run games with low point totals, though -- as low as 75. My disadvantage guideline is 50 points or half the points allowed for the character, whichever is greater. So, characters in my 75 point game have a suggested limit of 50, and characters in a 150 point game have a suggested limit of 75. I don't think I've ever seen anyone go that high, however.

I do agree with you on some level though. A GM who says "design whatever you want for x points" and doesn't review character sheets is probably not an effective GURPS GM, unless he or she provides a lot of additional guidance or is using a more standardized product like Dungeon Fantasy.

Even so, in situations where the players are designing characters on their own, GMs should still review the sheets, make suggestions, et cetera.

My two cents.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Bookman

I do agree with you on some level though. A GM who says "design whatever you want for x points" and doesn't review character sheets is probably not an effective GURPS GM, unless he or she provides a lot of additional guidance or is using a more standardized product like Dungeon Fantasy.

But that has nothing to do with Disad limits.

A GM can have disad limits and review characters.
A GM can have disad limits and not review characters.
A GM can have no disad limits and review characters.
A GM can have no disad limits and not review characters.

To say one of the problems with GMs who enforce disad limits is that they should be reviewing characters is a straw man.