Are quirks officially counted as disadvantages?

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

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*)

It's a rule in a official supplement. The bleeding rules are RAW, even if they're not implemented in every game.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

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.

My mistake. You didn't call anyone a bad GM. You merely implied that anyone who used disad limits must be either:

a) antagonistic
b) ham-handed and lacking balls

And if I insist that I (or trooper6) is neither, then we must be deluded or something.

If I enforce a fixed point total is that also a sign of a bad GM-player dynamic? Or just possibly might it be that some of us (but by no means all) don't have a problem with sticking to a structure? It doesn't hurt baby jesus if I write poetry in haiku form, and it's not a sign that my english teacher beat me with a cane pole in high school when I departed from iambic pentameter. And if we all get together to do a haiku-jam, I'm not being a big meanie if I tell the guy who tries to free rhyme that we're not doing that today.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

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.

If you don't want to play in those games, fine. But it's not unreasonable for me to say "build a character within these constraints" and expect you to do so. I mean, all games operate within some constraints. What makes "it's a space opera game" different from "don't go over the disad limit"? What if your character concept for the space opera game demands that you be a stone-age hunter gatherer with several hundred points of disads? At what point is "it's part of my character concept" no longer a valid excuse to not stick to character generation restrictions?

[Gurpser]

I must admit that the word "antagonistic" has a negative connotation for me and my immediate reaction was to be defensive.

In an Arena style PVP game I see the GM role as more purely that of referee than in any other style of play.

If the word "antagonistic" is intended in a more literary sense then the best role-playing scenarios calls for a very antagonistic GM.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

It's a rule in a official supplement. The bleeding rules are RAW, even if they're not implemented in every game.

It's suggested as an option for people who don't want to use the RAW, it's not part of the RAW.

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

If you don't want to play in those games, fine. But it's not unreasonable for me to say "build a character within these constraints" and expect you to do so. I mean, all games operate within some constraints. What makes "it's a space opera game" different from "don't go over the disad limit"? What if your character concept for the space opera game demands that you be a stone-age hunter gatherer with several hundred points of disads? At what point is "it's part of my character concept" no longer a valid excuse to not stick to character generation restrictions?

It's a GM power/control roll-playing vs role-playing issue, if you need to count a PC with DX 9, Will and Per 10 as having -40 points in disads because they have IQ 12, then you're having control issues.


How is telling a player that he has to increase his character's Will from 10 up to 12 and forbid him from playing an average Will 10 character to match his concept because of your need for a disad limit anything else other than a power control issue?

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Gurpser

In an Arena style PVP game I see the GM role as more purely that of referee than in any other style of play.

Depends on the arena, if the GM only moderates the PvP and isn't tossing out traps and monsters for the players to defeat singly or in concert, than he's just refereeing and not taking on any antagonistic role.

PvP arena games though are clearly a subset of roll-playing, more of a wargame with roleplay elements.
Sort of like Car Wars or Warhammer where you have a set amount of points or money to build your side.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

It's suggested as an option for people who don't want to use the RAW, it's not part of the RAW.

Maybe it's just me coming from originally posting on dumpshock where RAW was thrown around constantly and had a very specific definition, which was "included or a result of something included in an official supplement."

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

It's a GM power/control roll-playing vs role-playing issue, if you need to count a PC with DX 9, Will and Per 10 as having -40 points in disads because they have IQ 12, then you're having control issues.

... that is -40 points of disads. By definition.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

How is telling a player that he has to increase his character's Will from 10 up to 12 and forbid him from playing an average Will 10 character to match his concept because of your need for a disad limit anything else other than a power control issue?

It's pretty easily a wide variety of other things.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Maybe it's just me coming from originally posting on dumpshock where RAW was thrown around constantly and had a very specific definition, which was "included or a result of something included in an official supplement."

Options aren't RAW, they're just options, some of them even contradict each other directly since they're optional.

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

... that is -40 points of disads. By definition.

Exactly, so if you're counting it towards a limit, that has nothing to do with roleplaying or characterization, or modeling of any sort, it's strictly about the GM flexing his control by imposing a cookie cutter limit which has nothing to do with balance.

That's a bad dynamic unless you're in the mood for some sort of PvP arena rollplaying game, or other antagonistic GM style hack-n-slash or dungeon delving type of game.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Options aren't RAW, they're just options, some of them even contradict each other directly since they're optional.

No way. other wise the only thins that is RAW is GURPS Lite. you defection does not match well anything.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

No way. other wise the only thins that is RAW is GURPS Lite. you defection does not match well anything.

No, when designing a RAW character there are no default disad limits in place, none at all.

To have disad limits in place the GM has to specifically turn on that option and specify what the level and type of disad limit he has chosen for that specific campaign to be.

In choosing his own personal limit for a given campaign, some people may blindly default to a printed suggestion that "a good rule of thumb is to hold disads to 50% of starting points", but that suggestion could've just as easily have said "a good rule of thumb is to hold disads to -50 points plus -5 points in Quirks", or "a good rule of thumb is to hold disads to -33% of starting points plus -5 points in Quirks", or "a good rule of thumb is to hold disads to -75 points including -5 points in Quirks", or "a good rule of thumb is to hold disads to -66% of starting points including -5 points in Quirks", or "a good rule of thumb is to hold disads to -150 points plus -5 points in Quirks", etc.


A "good rule of thumb" is not something that anyone can call RAW with a serious face in any way shape or form.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

A "good rule of thumb" is not something that anyone can call RAW with a serious face in any way shape or form.

As everything not in Lite is Optional you can see how you talking nonsense?

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

As everything not in Lite is Optional you can see how you talking nonsense?

Dude don't be silly, if you're playing Lite, you're not playing GURPS, you're playing GURPS Lite, they aren't the same game.

If you are playing GURPS, and you don't understand what a "general rule of thumb" means, then as a general rule of thumb I suggest you find out.