Why is Broad-Minded a Quirk?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by kenclary

It is obvious that it was written and edited, but not at all obvious that the designer/editor agreed with _your_ opinion on what Broad-Minded means.

I'm not sure what you're refering to. No-one consulted me on it, ever. Personally, I begin from the POV that what someone writes is generally what they intend, so when the trait is described in a particular way (e.g. you get along with strangers), I assume that's what they intended. True, sometimes it becomes evident that's not the case, but what can you do?

Designers and editors also put the quirk into the chapter, wrote Xenophilia, and headed the trait with "trivial form of Xenophilia", all keeping in mind the definition and purpose of quirks.

Well, as I explained already, I think there have been a number of designers and editors involved over the years, and that those who originally devised this Quirk had something of a wrong notion about how they should work.

If you look at Uplift as I suggested, you might understand better why I say this.

Indeed.

Well, good. That was basically the only point I was making.

However, the quirk is only problematic if your assumption that it was intended to be beneficial is correct.

The problem is not my assumptions, or the intentions of the designer. The problem is that the description provided details beneficial things rather than foibles or constraints that are appropriate for a Quirk, quite irrespective of what I think broadmindedness should mean, or whatever may actually have been intended.

I think the problem is, at worst, a simple minor writing error.

Let me know if you feel the same way after you've looked at Uplift.

Broad-Minded was intended to be a quirk[1], written as a quirk[2], and priced like a quirk.

1. That seems likely, since they labelled it as such. (As I mentioned, I have a feeling that the designers at the time were operating under a different, less correct, approach to what a Quirk meant.)

2. It seemed to me that you agreed above that the writing was faulty.

If it were intended to have the beneficial effect you seem to think it is written to have, it would not be a perk; instead it would be an full advantage:...

My view on this point is in post # 194.

It [being a jerk] could impress an Intolerant Overlord who is watching, leading to your promotion in the ranks of his oppressive secret police. It could provoke your social rival into violence, allowing you to get them arrested. If the right people are watching, it could get you a lucrative job in talk radio.

Let's break this argument down a bit.

You're saying that the trait 'isn't a jerk' is disadvantageous because the character is hindered from showing such conduct to persons who admire jerk behaviour.

I think this can be refuted by analogy -- A trait that precludes sadism would have the same hindering effect in respect of persons who admire sadistic behaviour. Yet I don't think 'Isn't a sadist' would pass muster with most GMs as a legitimate drawback.

Also, "Never loses track of his wallet" would be a perk; "pack rat: dislikes throwing away personal effects" would be a quirk.

Yes, though I'd change 'dislikes' to 'resists'.