Why is Broad-Minded a Quirk?

[Ragitsu]

And if you dimension hop in a campaign where such a thing is rare/the first time, does the Quirk still count then? Food for thought.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

B119. The big box on the very first page of the disadvantage section.

Oh, that. Well, I'm not talking about 'good' disadvantages in that sense. That passage refers to advantages that society attributes to a good person. In the case of broadminded, we are talking about something described not as 'good' from a societal well-being perspective, but rather beneficial from a character's perspective -- he gets along with strangers and their looks don't bother him.

You seem completely stuck on this misinterpretation of how it works. It does not make people react better to you ...

Look at the description. It says you get along. It says you don't freak out. I reject as absurd the suggestion that reading the plain meaning of the words is a 'misinterpretation'.

You get along well with other people, but that doesn't mean they get along well with you.

You aren't getting along with someone if they are trying to kill you or insult you or whatever.

If you see some freaky alien monster mysteriously sitting at the bar, you're more likely to go up and try to start a conversation with it, while everyone else is running to get their guns. After all, it's just sitting there enjoying a drink, seems friendly enough, so what if it's got mandibles the size of your arms and a half-dozen barbed tentacles?...

That's a sensible approach for a house rule, sure.

While the major part of most disadvantages is not directly a reaction penalty, most will have some, in effect. The vast majority of disadvantages do not have a reaction penalty explicitly listed for them, but it's quite obvious that people will react poorly to it.

Then they all need to be worth five points more. If the GM starts imposing penalties outside the RAW descriptions all willy nilly, then I as a player would have some serious complaints.

Berserk, Combat Paralysis, Greed, Kleptomania, and several dozen others.

People who witness or are touched by the effects of these Disads should be expected to react within appropriate ranges. But these are not inherent factors of the trait and do not appear to be priced as part of them.

Someone claiming that they shouldn't cause negative reactions because the rules don't explicitly state that they should would strike me as the worst kind of munchkiny rules-lawyering.

I'm not saying the GM can't have setting features that affect how traits work, but that's a setting feature, not an element of this trait.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Oh, that. Well, I'm not talking about 'good' disadvantages in that sense. That passage refers to advantages that society attributes to a good person. In the case of broadminded, we are talking about something described not as 'good' from a societal well-being perspective, but rather beneficial from a character's perspective -- he gets along with strangers and their looks don't bother him.

Not beneficial from the player's perspective. It means not killing orcs or vampires on sight (without getting dinged for bad roleplaying)

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Not beneficial from the player's perspective.

In your house-rule.

It means not killing orcs or vampires on sight (without getting dinged for bad roleplaying)

IF they are strange and new to you.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Look at the description. It says you get along. It says you don't freak out. I reject as absurd the suggestion that reading the plain meaning of the words is a 'misinterpretation'.

For the sake of discussion, let's say you're correct (note: it appears that many people posting in this thread disagree with your interpretation of the trait). If so, this is clearly an errata, right? Either:

a) the designers intended to write a powerful advantage that automatically makes any members of other races/species and any "strange" things "get along" with you in some clearly beneficial fashion, likely an automatic success on reaction rolls, etc. Yet, they forgot to include any rules for this, and accidentally listed it as a quirk, even going so far as to call it a minor version of an existing disadvantage (Xenophilia).

b) the designers, or perhaps an editor or layout designer, should have written "try to get along" instead of "get along." Because someone could take it out of context and decide it trumps the entire reaction system.

I think b) is far more likely than a), given everything else the books have to say about disadvantages, quirks, Xenophilia, and Broad-Minded itself.

[Ulzgoroth]

kenclary has the important part of the whole thing, really. Though I'd add that I don't think the wording as written is inherently wrong for the obviously intended meaning, just obviously not perfect enough to prevent misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Whatever the GM/game system implicitly or explicitly determines it to be. The description of Broadminded on B163 says "strange looks rarely bother you". The words "strange", "rarely" and "bother" all evoke the concept of divergence from some standard, norm, or equilibrium.

Aside from your commitment to stripping usable specificity from as many words as possible...

While 'rarely' and 'bother' are not relative terms, just vague, 'strange' is certainly relative to some unspecified 'normal'. And that doesn't matter at all to understanding the quirk.

It's a mental quirk. "Strange looks rarely bother you" does not mean 'with some unspecified but high frequency you can ignore the bothering effects of strange looks' in that context (and if that meaning were intended in any context, it wouldn't have been left to that vague sentence). The labeling tells you that it is describing a limited constraint on a PC's behavior. In that context, "strange looks rarely bother you" means, for instance, 'while other people might find the red glow of the shopkeeper's eyes suspicious, you generally don't see it as a problem'.

[Mehmet]

1- No 1 point Perk could guarantee "all alien things will get along with you as well as you get along with them" so the arguments that Broadminded has to be a Perk is void. Closest would be (taking the building blocks of Reaction Bonus) +5 Reaction Bonus (All the time, only for alien things and stuff (-X%)) which can be as low as 5 CPs (neg modifier limit) and as high as 25 CPs (everything is alien) and even this does not guarantee "getting along."

So, the obvious Occam's Razor approach would be "the authors mean YOU get along, you are friendly towards them, not necessarily they towards you."

Please note that this assumption is the "basis" assumption for "2" below.

2- If the character faces an obviously (note the emulated narrow mindedness here) dangerous being, say, some pale bloke with long canine teeth and with a disturbing habit of speaking in a hissing voice, and if the character is NOT knowledgable about vampires, Broadmindedness requires him (Note the limitation in behaviour) to approach this character with, well, broadmindedness. So no "I suspect this thing is going to mind trick me and drink my blood so I'm cautios, not making an eye contact and my hand is on my sword-hilt" kind of measures.

This, obviously, is a disadvantage but a disadvantage that would not come up too often in play so it is a quirk.

Although, I suspect, this explanation will not make any difference.

Cheers!

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

There is no default state of a PC.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Norms are norms. I have no idea what you mean by a norm "for a PC". PCs can be normal or not normal for their settings.

So a PC has no obligation to fit the norms of his setting, is that what you're saying?

If that is the case, where is a game like GURPS suppose to start? The setting is irrelevant, as the PCs need only just fit in. There's no mandate on how PC's behave, so anything that forces a PC to behave a particular way must be restricting the character.

Lets take a case study. The players need to infiltrate the ranks of a social group noted for their intolerance of others. The player who's character is Broad-Minded is the best suited for the infiltration and, though not the only one who could, ends up being the one who infiltrates the group. As play progresses, even when not around the group being infiltrated, the player shows a distinct lack of Broad-Mindedness. By RAW, the GM is free to dock points as he can with any Mental Quirk, or discuss with the player about changing Broad-Minded to something else.

Now lets change the case study a bit, and deal with the start of the infiltration. If the player doesn't roleplay having similar ideals to the social group (that is, he keeps presenting his Broad-Minded nature) then the GM is within his rights to apply a worse task difficulty modifier. On the other hand, roleplaying similar ideals without at least making a little fuss beforehand(giving everyone a reminder that you're Broad-Minded and aren't entirely happy with having to do this) could make the GM dock points. Most Broad-Minded people aren't going to behave like a Narrow-Minded person as and when they feel like it.

Finally, Broad-Minded only tells you, the player, how your character behaves with regard to a specific type of situation. This is not worthy of a perk. Where does it say how other people are affected by it? Where does it give a modifier that can be applied to something? Where does it give immunity to a game effect (as opposed to descriptive effects like strange looks or aliens)? Since it restricts your behaviour, how is it a feature when a PC without it is free to play his character to fit the current needs of the story? How does it differ significantly from Humble, or Responsive? What about the fact that Quirks don't have to be a disadvantage to the character?

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Mehmet

1- No 1 point Perk could guarantee "all alien things will get along with you as well as you get along with them" so the arguments that Broadminded has to be a Perk is void. Closest would be (taking the building blocks of Reaction Bonus) +5 Reaction Bonus (All the time, only for alien things and stuff (-X%)) which can be as low as 5 CPs (neg modifier limit) and as high as 25 CPs (everything is alien) and even this does not guarantee "getting along."

So, the obvious Occam's Razor approach would be "the authors mean YOU get along, you are friendly towards them, not necessarily they towards you."

Actually, a good Perk to look at is Passing Appearance. That wouldn't extend to other species (at least in a realistic game).

Broad-Minded does use 'you', which in Roleplaying games either refers to you, the player, or you, the character. I don't think I've ever seen it used for you, plural. Too much ambiguity otherwise.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by kenclary

For the sake of discussion, let's say you're correct (note: it appears that many people posting in this thread disagree with your interpretation of the trait). If so, this is clearly an errata, right? Either:

a) the designers intended to write a powerful advantage that automatically makes any members of other races/species and any "strange" things "get along" with you in some clearly beneficial fashion, likely an automatic success on reaction rolls, etc. Yet, they forgot to include any rules for this, and accidentally listed it as a quirk, even going so far as to call it a minor version of an existing disadvantage (Xenophilia).

b) the designers, or perhaps an editor or layout designer, should have written "try to get along" instead of "get along." Because someone could take it out of context and decide it trumps the entire reaction system.

I think b) is far more likely than a), given everything else the books have to say about disadvantages, quirks, Xenophilia, and Broad-Minded itself.

Well, certainly I'm merely speculating, but I recall that the first time I saw Broadminded offered as a quirk (1) it was before perks were invented and (b) it was accompanied by a variety of other badly designed beneficial quirks (only Broadminded and Attententive seem to have carried over to 4e.). This makes me think that there was a period when the designers were operating under a confused or skewed approach to Quirks wherein some were effectively doing double duty as perks. In 4e the concept was re-clarified, but Broadminded and Attentive survived inadvertently.