Are quirks officially counted as disadvantages?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by 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.

When personal offense is taken at a criticism of a *choice*that people are free to make or not, to recognize that offense as valid is to make claims of victimhood a tool for silencing dissent.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

When personal offense is taken at a criticism of a *choice*that people are free to make or not, to recognize that offense as valid is to make claims of victimhood a tool for silencing dissent.

Making statements that those who GM in a style that you don't like are bad GMs is a way of silencing dissent. Calling people out on that isn't.

There is a difference between an attack and a critique.

"Anyone who does X is an antagonistic GM" is not a critique.

ETA: Also note, I'm not saying, "Ze stop talking," I'm just asking him to communicate his ideas in a less attacky sort of way. It is possible to talk about the positives of having no disad limits with out name calling people who do something different.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

When personal offense is taken at a criticism of a *choice*that people are free to make or not, to recognize that offense as valid is to make claims of victimhood a tool for silencing dissent.

No it's not. If I say "People who like ice cream are pedophiles/nazis/racists/martians/lightbulbs" and you respond "I like ice cream but am not a pedophile/etc, and am offended that you would think I am one because of my desire for frozen milk and sugar," that is not a claim to victimhood. That's a fairly rational response to a ludicrously antagonistic statement.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by trooper6

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.

Well for one, because it isn't recommended in the book, it's listed as an optional crutch for GMs who have power dynamic issues.

Originally Posted by trooper6

My players appreciate knowing what the character creation guidelines are. That gives them building blocks to work with. Then they create awesome things.

They create awesome things with 40 base points plus 20 points in disads?
That'd be awesome only in the level of lameness involved.

Originally Posted by trooper6

So why wouldn't I keep using the rules that are recommended?

They aren't recommended, they're listed as an optional rule of thumb for people who need that particular crutch in their GM vs Player dynamic.

Originally Posted by trooper6

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.

I'm saying outright that if you're running 40 point campaigns with a hard 20 point disad limit that we should judge your campaign as being antagonistic and resulting in lame character generation all around.

You can hardly make much of a believable or 3-dimensional character that way, nor anything much of interest to play, it's just lame and a clear indication of a GM who is having power issues, either because he can't handle player options or because he needs to keep PCs under his thumb so they don't jump any rails.

20 points in disads means say IQ 12, Per 10, Will 10, congratulations, you've now created a setup where 40 point characters cannot have any Quirks or Disads for roleplaying purposes, lame.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Making statements that those who GM in a style that you don't like are bad GMs is a way of silencing dissent. Calling people out on that isn't.

There is a difference between an attack and a critique.

"Anyone who does X is an antagonistic GM" is not a critique.

Oh please, that's such oversensitivity that it ain't even funny.

If you want to take offense at some critique you're free to do so, but no one should deign that oversensitivity as being valid.

I like making generalized statements, a generalized statement is not an absolute, it's a generalization, things which are generalizations are indications of what lies beyond in general, not necessarily in specific, taking it in specific is oversensitivity or denial.

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

No it's not. If I say "People who like ice cream are pedophiles/nazis/racists/martians/lightbulbs" and you respond "I like ice cream but am not a pedophile/etc, and am offended that you would think I am one because of my desire for frozen milk and sugar," that is not a claim to victimhood. That's a fairly rational response to a ludicrously antagonistic statement.

Strawman on your part there, but to answer because I'm an idiot that way, if A says "people who molest X are Y" and B responds that he "molests X but isn't Y and is offended at being considered Y", then that is both a claim to victimhood by B and an indication that B is in denial about what Y even means.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

if A says "people who molest X are Y" and B responds that he "molests X but isn't Y and is offended at being considered Y", then that is both a claim to victimhood by B and an indication that B is in denial about what Y even means.

Sure, but that requires that the definition of "Y" is "someone who molests X." Claiming that people who use a portion of the rules as written of GURPS are automatically bad GMs is so ludicrous a statement as to be farcical. The problem is you're the one claiming that "someone who molests X" is not the definition of "Y."

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by trooper6

But that has nothing to do with Disad limits.

Ze mentioned GM review; that's what I was responding to. I don't think I connected the two.

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.

Was it necessary to itemize this? I assure you I'm quite familiar with the rules of logic...

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

I wasn't saying that. I was responding to a different part of Ze'Manel's post ("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."), but I didn't quote it. I can see how it may have confused you, even though I didn't connect the two in the way you describe above.

In case it is still not clear to you: I'm agreeing with Ze's contention that GMs need to be cooperatively involved in the character creation process while disagreeing with his take on disadvantage limits.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Sure, but that requires that the definition of "Y" is "someone who molests X." Claiming that people who use a portion of the rules as written of GURPS are automatically bad GMs is so ludicrous a statement as to be farcical. The problem is you're the one claiming that "someone who molests X" is not the definition of "Y."

First of all, the optional disad "suggestion" is not RAW, there are lots of optional suggestions, that's mainly what sticks in my craw, when people go on and on about equating an option with RAW.
(Bad reaction modifier, quirk level. *grin*)

Secondly, I never said people who use that lame optional disad suggestion are bad GMs, I said using them is"an indication of a bad GM player dynamic", grammatically the adjective bad in that sentence is a modifying the word dynamic, not the word GM.
I went on to describe two of the leading causes of that bad dynamic, antagonistic GMs, which BTW is a style thing and pretty common with many gaming groups, and ham fisting due to being burned by Munchkin players, which again is a style thing and very common in many groups.

Nowhere in there did I say an antagonistic GM is a bad GM.

However, if I was in your game and came to you with a character concept for a 100 point campaign with a PC which had say ST 9, DX 9, IQ 12, Per 10, Will 10, Sense of Duty (Friends), Duty and Code of Honor (Professional) only to have you turn around and tell me to boost something because you wouldn't allow that many disads in your campaign, then I would say that you have a clear problem with your player GM dynamic and that you have a need to strut, so I'd take it as a get out of Dodge card because I know I wouldn't want to play on the rails you're setting up.

[Gurpser]

Okay, as the GM in question, let me lay out what was going on and why.

This was for a Play by Post game that mainly focuses on PVP action.

I started with the Ultra-Low points because I wanted to slowly add more complexity as the characters earned points in an Arena type setting.

All of the players received the same amount of points to create their characters and to allow one player 5 extra points would have seriously tipped the scales in a game that was intended as more Roll-Playing then Role-Playing (and was advertised as such).

This was a balance issue not a role-playing issue or antagonistic GM issue.

I think the language in the Basic Set is clear and since the 4e have always counted Quirks against the disadvantage limit.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Gurpser

Okay, as the GM in question, let me lay out what was going on and why.

This was for a Play by Post game that mainly focuses on PVP action.

I started with the Ultra-Low points because I wanted to slowly add more complexity as the characters earned points in an Arena type setting.

All of the players received the same amount of points to create their characters and to allow one player 5 extra points would have seriously tipped the scales in a game that was intended as more Roll-Playing then Role-Playing (and was advertised as such).

You're absolutely right, in a PvP balanced roll-playing situation every negative point should be counted.

Originally Posted by Gurpser

This was a balance issue not a role-playing issue or antagonistic GM issue.

A PvP arena game is, by necessity, an antagonistic GM dynamic, it's not an issue, it's a necessary part of the set-up.

The antagonistic GM dynamic is also necessary in many Dungeon Fantasy games, again as part of the set-up.