Just a quick question about quirks

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by PK

Absolutely. The Basic Set is explicit that anything with a negative point cost -- including disadvantages, quirks, attributes below 10, and secondary characteristics lowered below base value -- counts toward any disadvantage limit set by the GM.

Yes. The "anything with a negative point cost" definition is early on. (No books handy, but it's at the beginning of Characters, probably intro text for Disadvantages.) It mentions a number of specific categories. Quirks aren't included by name in the enumerated examples, but there's an "and so on".

But then, the text for Quirks is also explicit (and quoted in the referenced Krommquote): "It has a negative point value, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage."

These two statements are contradictory. Either everything with a negative point cost is a Disad, no matter what; or there are some exceptions where at least some Quirks with a negative point cost are nevertheless not Disads. Both statements can't be true at once. The contradiction has nothing to do with Disad limits. These statements are simply about category.

- All traits with a negative point cost are Disads
- All Quirks have a negative point cost
= Therefore, Quirks are Disads
- But, not all Quirks are Disads

At least one of our three axioms must be false.

Not a big deal, and easily dealt with in real life. But as long as we're quoting scripture, we have to face the fact that the text is self-contradictory. Perhaps there's a perfectionist that feels up to writing the errata. Then that can be filed at the bottom of the priority list where it belongs, and the text will eventually be updated, perhaps in 5e.

I'll be sad that Bertrand Russell has to drop out of my group, no longer being able to enjoy a game that includes this sort of flaw, but the rest of us will struggle on somehow.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

But then, the text for Quirks is also explicit (and quoted in the referenced Krommquote): "It has a negative point value, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage."

Could that just be incautious use of a term of art in its non-term-of-art meaning? A quirk has a point value of [-1] and in that sense is a Disadvantage, but a quirk does not have to be disadvantageous.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Could that just be incautious use of a term of art in its non-term-of-art meaning?

Could be. The word "disadvantage" isn't capitalized. (At least in that quote; I can't check the original ATM.)

[Otaku]

So... what's the official definition of "Disadvantage" in 4e?

My flawed understanding in was (is?) that Quirks are the bottom run of Disadvantages; anything more minor than a Quirk isn't worth recording. They are useful tools for promoting more detailed role-playing (like other Disadvantages) and you receive points for them because ultimately they restrict your freedom as a character. 4e Perks are their inverse; often beneficial but specialized Traits worth only a single character point... and in both cases potentially inflated to integer status for convenient bookkeeping.

So some of this seems to be semantics; Quirks are Disadvantages that aren't particularly Disadvantageous; restricting how many a player can take is to avoid someone taking the time to come up with more than five just-barely-relevant "restrictions" on their character's freedom. If player and GM can agree, no such limit needs to be imposed; once you have more than five "obscure" restrictions, they tend to stop being so obscure or distinctive and instead of having them come up from time to time, X Quirks are always in effect.

Again, I realize my understanding is flawed; please feel free to try and clear things up for me. >_>

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Otaku

So... what's the official definition of "Disadvantage" in 4e?

Anything with a negative point cost.

Originally Posted by B119

In addition to the traits in this chapter [Chapter 3 which includes the quirks], this includes anything with a negative point cost in Chapter 1:

Originally Posted by B120

This limit applies to the total points you can get from all traits with negative point costs,

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Again, I realize my understanding is flawed; please feel free to try and clear things up for me. >_>

The right answer is: who cares?. GURPS doesn't make much effort to write rules for rules lawyers. Once you grasp that, you should see that flawed understanding here is not in reading the rules differently than Kromm intended, but in thinking the "official definition" of a disadvantage matters.

It's a social game, and writes rules for people who are expected to be capable of social compromises. You don't get to play a character that conforms to the rules but the GM (or for that matter your fellow players) think will not be fun. Conversely if the GM likes your character concept but it has a couple more quirks that allowed by the disadvantage limit, he doesn't have to reject it. I might shave a couple points off something you spent some of those on and knock some of the disadvantages you wanted down to 0 - and yes, that's legal, the disadvantage limit is a limit on the number of points you get back, you are certainly allowed to play your character with additional quirks you don't get any points for - but he doesn't have to.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by malloyd

The right answer is: who cares?

I care.

If that is not sufficient reason enough for the discussion, feel free to ignore me. Thanks for trying, but I was already aware of what you said as it was covered in the 3e rules.

Personally I enjoy dissecting the rules and mechanics for the games I play; if you do not, I realize it can seem very strange. So when I inquire about such things, it isn't because I with to be a "rules lawyer"; its rather tedious to be one in a game like GURPS, something I sadly know first hand from youthful folly.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I care.

I suppose my point then is you are doomed to be disappointed.

That is, even if SJ were to offer an answer to any particular question like this, which you could then label official, no one writing any particular rule you think it makes a difference for made any effort to write it to be consistent with whatever answer you got. I suppose you could then be *certain* two (one supposes equally official) rules conflict with each other, rather than just thinking that might be the case, but I don't see what you gain from that.

[Otaku]

Before I forget, thank you sir_pudding for your post and the information it contained.

Originally Posted by malloyd

I suppose my point then is you are doomed to be disappointed.

That is, even if SJ were to offer an answer to any particular question like this, which you could then label official, no one writing any particular rule you think it makes a difference for made any effort to write it to be consistent with whatever answer you got. I suppose you could then be *certain* two (one supposes equally official) rules conflict with each other, rather than just thinking that might be the case, but I don't see what you gain from that.

I believe I addressed this already. With added emphasis:

Originally Posted by Otaku

If that is not sufficient reason enough for the discussion, feel free to ignore me. Thanks for trying, but I was already aware of what you said as it was covered in the 3e rules.

Personally I enjoy dissecting the rules and mechanics for the games I play; if you do not, I realize it can seem very strange. So when I inquire about such things, it isn't because I with to be a "rules lawyer"; its rather tedious to be one in a game like GURPS, something I sadly know first hand from youthful folly.

I get it... you have zero interest in further discussion: why take time to belittle me for asking questions?

One of the important things in life is learning to analyze and properly understand; there are so many irreconcilable things in life that exist because people don't, and perhaps worse there are so many perfectly consistent things that are dismissed as contradictory because people come at them with limited understanding. If the rules contradict, they contradict and I'll deal with it; GURPS never was and never will be perfect. ;) If the rules don't contradict, then I should probably make sure I understand them. Either way for me it is worth addressing because:

1) I like discussing such things
2) It helps me to better explain things to new (or at least potential) players

[Phantasm]

If I'm following things right, the following assumptions are being made in GURPS design:

1) GMs set their own Disadvantage Limit for their games;
2) Anything with a negative point cost, unless it's declared part of a set of traits everyone gets for free, counts towards said Disadvantage Limit;
3) Quirks are -1 point Disadvantages;
4) Not all Quirks are necessarily truly disadvantageous to the character (note the lower-case "d" there); and
5) Not everything that was a Quirk in 3e is legal in 4e (case in point, "always wears black" is explicitly mentioned as not a valid Quirk in 4e).

Did I miss anything?