Why is Broad-Minded a Quirk?

[Mehmet]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I note that the description does not say 'all', nor does it say 'as well as'. It's vague, but it's beneficial, so it should not be a Quirk. I think conceptually the described benefits would make an okay perk, but would do well to be written more specifically.

Hm? What I mean, in reverse, is "you get along with aliens well" means you get along with them - not that they have to get along with you too. That sentence means, basically, "you are not bothered by their alienness." You are interpretting it wrong if you think it means "they get along well with you too".

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Well, the concept of Xenophilia does not require Gullibility. You are required to be attracted to their strangeness, but there is no requirement to ignore clear danger signals.

Read carefully - if you don't have ANY knowledge about vampirisim you don't read those signs as "hostile behaviour" or "danger signals." I have a friend who speaks as if he's hissing all the time - he's got a throat condition. Another friend's dogs wouldn't attack you if you hit them with a abseball bat - but they have long canine teeth.

That Quirk means that you don't automatically assume "if it is alien it must be evil" - therefore, you can be (sometimes) taken by surprise and some people will think you're a headcase;

"Hey, Doctor, don't go near it!"
"No, no, no, no! It is just trying to communicate with me Major! Lower your weapons!"

Anyways, it seems your mileage varies so I won't argue.

Cheers!

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

1. Note that your example shows a character being selected because of the presumed BENEFITS of Broadmindedness, i.e. the facets that I suggess preclude it from being a Quirk.

Then it would seem I didn't give enough clarification in my case study. The fact that the character selected has Broad-Minded is suppose to form a foot note for that character. The traits that make a character good for the infiltration are deliberately left unspecified, but Broad-Minded isn't meant to be one of them.

2. It's odd that the character displays a "lack of Broadmindedness" (in that he doesn't get along with strangers and he reacts badly to their funny looks) even though the trait clearly excuses him from this problem. Why would he do that?

Nothing stops a player from doing bad roleplaying. That's why the GM can dock points for bad roleplaying when you have Mental Quirks.

A player infiltrating a group with known intolerances should show similar intolerances. The amount increases the higher up in the group you want to infiltrate, and the more extreme the intolerances of the group. Showing yourself to be Broad-Minded to them will harm your attempts at infiltration as they may not feel you support their cause as well as you should. In some cases, groups may call for initiation tests to prove loyalty. Whilst you are infiltrating (A.K.A. undercover), the GM shouldn't penalise you for bad roleplaying. When you stop being undercover, or are in a situation where you think you aren't being observed by those you are infiltrating, the GM is then free to assess your actions based on your quirks and then dock points according.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Let me re-phrase it more simply. Which way do you think the writers of the current, fourth edition of the rules, want Broad-Minded to function?

I really have no idea. Perhaps they will see fit to clarify that in a future edition.

As a massively-powerful advantage that acts as an automatically-successful reaction roll, worth likely dozens of points, ...

If they wanted that, I doubt it would have been conceived as a Quirk. As mentioned, I think that originally it was devised at a time when in the absence of Perks, any minor (especially 'soft') trait was lumped in as a Quirk with little thought to whether it was beneficial or not.

... do you think the whole thing could be cleared up perfectly by an eretta that fixes the grammar ...?

Inasmuch as the problem is that the description of this quirk appears to provide benefits, then certainly changing it to avoid the problem would seem to be the correct remedy, and reprinting simply for a long-standing blunder on a one-point trait seems excessive. So errata it is, I guess.

You've been going on and on about how our reading of the quirk is wrong,...

I reject that characterization. I have been responding to comments directed at my comments. It takes 2, or in this case a half-dozen or so, to tango.

I'd like to see a good, solid example of how you think the various levels of Xenophilia and Broad-Minded (Being a "trivial form of Xenophilia") are supposed to be played.

That's part of the problem. If I had never heard of Broadminded and I wrote on my sheet "Quirk: Trivial Xenophilia", I would have a pretty clear idea what I would do with it, and if this suits the GM, I would consider it fully within the scope of, as Nerdvana points out, a implicit contract between us as to play expectations.

But I have no idea whether that is what anyone else would agree is what I am 'supposed' to do. This is mostly because I can't think what referent you would point to as establishing the 'supposition' in the first place, other than the rules. And the text of the rules, when I discover Broadminded, establish no supposition that appears to require any restraint on my characters' part other than not being a jerk to strangers. "Quirk: Is not a jerk"?

As I recal, Kromm has been pretty clear and specific that GURPS was designed assuming "adventuring" play. It does work quite well for other styles, too, but that was the baseline 4e was structured around.

Kromm and I do have certain philosophical differences on that point.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

I'm going to have to echo what someone else said. If they see a disadvantage, and interpret it in a way that gives them a very powerful advantage with no disadvantages, and take that with the intention of it working as an advantage instead of a disadvantage (Rather than, say, asking about it), they have no grounds to complain when the GM says "No." That's pretty severe Munchkinery there, not innocence.

And if a player feels screwed because they didn't get their massively powerful ability for the cost of getting an extra character point, they're pretty petty.

My point is not that the advantage is too powerful. As a one-point feature in either direction it would obviously not be. It's 'soft' construction invites the GM to give it as much play as one-point merits. The problem I perceive is that, even played at the appropriate one-point scale, the description falls on the wrong side of +/-.

I also reject the idea that a player can't rely on the straight descriptions in the book without being relegated to munckinery (another term GMs sometimes use in denigration of players who lack telepathy and just want to have fun).

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Mehmet

Hm? What I mean, in reverse, is "you get along with aliens well" means you get along with them - not that they have to get along with you too. That sentence means, basically, "you are not bothered by their alienness." You are interpretting it wrong if you think it means "they get along well with you too".

I'd say it was written wrong if it was meant to mean "you are not bothered by their alienness".

... if you don't have ANY knowledge about vampirisim you don't read those signs as "hostile behaviour" or "danger signals."

This depends on what signs we are talking about. White skin and sharp teeth, no. Even a xenophile is not required to ignore a ham-handed attempt to disarm you for no apparent reason, however.

I suspect we don't really disagree, but let me know.

Anyways, it seems your mileage varies so I won't argue.

Cheers!

Likewise, cheers.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

Then it would seem I didn't give enough clarification in my case study. The fact that the character selected has Broad-Minded is suppose to form a foot note for that character. The traits that make a character good for the infiltration are deliberately left unspecified, but Broad-Minded isn't meant to be one of them.

Ah. I think I assumed it was because, as written, it would appear to be helpful in such a task.

Nothing stops a player from doing bad roleplaying. That's why the GM can dock points for bad roleplaying when you have Mental Quirks.

What confuses me is that it's not just bad roleplaying, it's bad roleplaying that runs counter to mission success. Where's his incentive for this bad roleplaying?

A player infiltrating a group with known intolerances should show similar intolerances. The amount increases the higher up in the group you want to infiltrate, and the more extreme the intolerances of the group.

Hmm. It seems to me that the character is only ACTING intolerant (which I would think being broadminded would help him do -- his own real prejudices won't interfere*). He's got to disguise all kinds of things about himself, probably. Playing an in-plot role against type is not faulty role-playing.

*To be fair, I guess you could take this the other direction -- your broadmindedness interferes with your ability to act intolerant.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Inasmuch as the problem is that the description of this quirk appears to provide benefits, then certainly changing it to avoid the problem would seem to be the correct remedy, and reprinting simply for a long-standing blunder on a one-point trait seems excessive. So errata it is, I guess.

I highly doubt the designers, at any stage of GURPS' development, intended for Broad-Minded to "provide benefits." I think it was intended to be proscriptive of the character's actions, not proscriptive of the _results_ of the character's actions. Furthermore, while the addition of the two words "try to" would make that very explicit, I think that the existing wording is at least open to my interpretation.

Is the sentence open to your interpretation? Of course. However, only a severely pedantic reading, taken out of context of nearly the entire chapter it is within, would insist the sentence intends what you say it intends, and not allow any other interpretation.

That's part of the problem. If I had never heard of Broadminded and I wrote on my sheet "Quirk: Trivial Xenophilia", I would have a pretty clear idea what I would do with it, and if this suits the GM, I would consider it fully within the scope of, as Nerdvana points out, a implicit contract between us as to play expectations.

Given that the opening sentence very explicitly defines Broad-Minded as the trivial form of Xenophilia, I think your insistence that Broad-Minded is somehow something far different from that is misplaced.

But I have no idea whether that is what anyone else would agree is what I am 'supposed' to do. This is mostly because I can't think what referent you would point to as establishing the 'supposition' in the first place, other than the rules. And the text of the rules, when I discover Broadminded, establish no supposition that appears to require any restraint on my characters' part other than not being a jerk to strangers. "Quirk: Is not a jerk"?

"Is not a jerk" would be a valid quirk, if specified to an appropriately sized group of people (if it applied to everyone the PC encountered, it's probably a more valuable disadvantage, and probably covered by one that already exists).

[nerdvana]

Originally Posted by kenclary

... only a severely pedantic reading...

Amen. Thanks for so clearly defining Figleaf23's fallacy. :)

Fallacy: 3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by kenclary

I highly doubt the designers, at any stage of GURPS' development, intended for Broad-Minded to "provide benefits."

Take a look at an old copy of Uplift and tell me if you still feel that way.

I think it was intended to be proscriptive of the character's actions, not proscriptive of the _results_ of the character's actions. Furthermore, while the addition of the two words "try to" would make that very explicit, I think that the existing wording is at least open to my interpretation.

I would say your interpretation is based on a reasonable idea of what it should be, but it's not supported by what is actually there -- hence the need to correct what is there.

Given that the opening sentence very explicitly defines Broad-Minded as the trivial form of Xenophilia, I think your insistence that Broad-Minded is somehow something far different from that is misplaced.

Given that a trivial form of xenophilia should be disadvantageous, the designers' choice to add a description that is at odds with that leads one to think the choice must be deliberate. Otherwise, why add the text at all?

"Is not a jerk" would be a valid quirk, if specified to an appropriately sized group of people (if it applied to everyone the PC encountered, it's probably a more valuable disadvantage, and probably covered by one that already exists).

I wouldn't allow such a Quirk. Being a jerk is not a good thing, so a trait that forecloses it is beneficial.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by nerdvana

Amen. Thanks for so clearly defining Figleaf23's fallacy. :)

Fallacy: 3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

I'm right here you know.