Are quirks officially counted as disadvantages?

[Langy]

all are intended (IIRC, this was 7 glorious years ago) to avoid being considered recommendation-strengt

If so, they failed, because they are recommendation-strength. I'm not saying the 50% of character point total is recommended - I'm saying having a disadvantage limit at all is clearly recommended.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Langy

If so, they failed, because they are recommendation-strength. I'm not saying the 50% of character point total is recommended - I'm saying having a disadvantage limit at all is clearly recommended.

How could it be expressed that you would agree is not a recommendation either way?

[Langy]

A box that says "Optional Rule: Disadvantage Limit", much like most other optional rules in the game.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Langy

A box that says "Optional Rule: Disadvantage Limit", much like most other optional rules in the game.

No other way?

[Langy]

Maybe some other ways, but that would be the simplest and clearest. An explicit declaration within the text that it's an optional rule and the authors don't believe it's applicable to most games would also make it clear that it isn't a recommendation.

However, the explicit 'In practice most GMs...' bit makes it absolutely clear that it is a recommendation.

[Jamaraq]

The way I (and my group) read it is that it's an optional rule that's recommended for most GMs to: 1) To prevent the game from becoming a circus and 2) set an upper limit to the characters abilities.

We were are new to Gurps when we started in 2008, so we followed this optional rule because it was recommended for 'most GMs'.

We just see it as the same type of campaign parameter as Starting Character Points or Campaign Tech Level.

To whoever thinks Disadvantage Limits are only enforced by antagonistic GMs:
That's not the case in our group, but we could be the exception that proves the rule :D.

[Langy]

The way I (and my group) read it is that it's an optional rule that's recommended for most GMs

That's exactly how I read it, just like defined character point totals.

[Kromm]

Late to the party, I know, but:

• Answers to "Are quirks officially counted as disadvantages?" are on-topic.
  
• Thoughts on "What's a quirk?" or "What's a disadvantage?" are related, and also fine.
  
• Musings on what's a good size for the disad limit, and whether you even need it, are again an acceptable outgrowth.

However, these things are off-topic and not fine:

• Schooling others in how logic or debating works.
  
• "One True Way of Gaming" nonsense.

Keep it civil, folks. Thanks!

[Kuroshima]

Well, coming from 3rd ed, I was (pleasantly) surprised that the disadvantage limit was a very "change to taste" rule (more like a suggestion), and that if it was enforced, every negative trait was counted. Contradictory? no, allow me to explain:

negative attributes, in 3rd ed, only counted against the disadvantage limit if they were lower than 8 IIRC. This meant that you saw many ST8-9, high DX, high IQ, low HT characters. This also meant that those characters were very fragile, but that they were much stronger skill-wise than other characters. The thing was, should the GM kill them due to their fragility? If you answered yes, then you had players who sat most of a session out, either building a new character, or waiting for his new character to be introduced. If you answered no, then the other players felt that they were getting disadvantaged for having believable characters. Kinda catch22 right?

In my games, there's always a suggested disadvantage limit. Sometimes it's low, because it does not fit the genre to have deeply flawed heroes (Action or DF, for example) sometimes, it is segmented (you can only take up to X mundane disadvantages, and Y supernatural/exotic disadvantage, such as in Supers games), and sometimes, it's set high enough that no character will go near it (Supers games). It's a suggested disadvantage limit, and I'm open to dialog, but you've better have a good reason for going over it. Just because you want more kewl powahs does not qualify. I set the disadvantage limit because I want to restrict the character types in my campaign, because I go for a certain genre.

Sometimes, absolute freedom creates less originality than constrained choices. Sometimes, artificial constraints cripple creativity. Each campaign is different, and each GM should use his veto right and his guiding hand. No option is absolutely better in all circumstances

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Langy

However, the explicit 'In practice most GMs...' bit makes it absolutely clear that it is a recommendation.

But that's a totally impartial statement! I can see how a majority practice can be an implied recommendation on the part of the majority, but on the part of the authors I can see only a passive communication of what people new to GURPS can expect.