Why is Broad-Minded a Quirk?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Wraithe

Well, anyone who is suggesting that either Xenophilia OR Broad-Minded is anything other than one-way is creating it whole cloth.

Xenophilia isn't. Broadminded shouldn't be. But the description of the trait defines the outcome of getting along, so that makes it appear two-way (but see below *).

I think the description in Xenophilia is pretty clear, ...

The description is clear, but there are a few surprising interpretations of it out there.

I guess I can see what you mean in that YOU get along with other races, not that THEY get along with you isn't spelled out in Broad-Minded.
("I just LOVE how _you people_ can shoot those bows!" *Cold Stares from the Elves in the Bar at the Dwarf [Chauvinism -1] + [Broad-Minded -1] who just spoke*) :)

But, I have to admit that I find any ambiguity in Broad-Minded solidly negated by the words: "It gives you a small penalty" less than .25" away on the page, under the description of Quirks. :)

I certainly agree that a GM confronted by this inconsistency is right to make up some alteration to the trait description to make it a proper Quirk.*

[Phoenix_Dragon]

You know... If someone were to think that there was only one possible way to read something, but then found out that everyone else apparantly read it differently, you'd think that person might consider the possibility that they were wrong...

[carllarson]

You do realize that by this interpretation, Honesty should be an advantage, if you play your character per the disadvantage.

If you have Honesty, and never break from its philosophy, you never incur the negatives, and always benefit from +2 reaction from anyone who knows your philosophy.

Hmm, -10cp for taking the advantage I want to play (so, no sweat off my nose, I want to play within the alleged restrictions), plus the reaction bonus (played right, +2 to a large group, given I may be a truly social virtuoso with appropriate social advantages to widen my audience).

Applied to Broad-Minded; a restriction on my play, which I believe is beneficial (openmindedness can open doors, and I may get in fewer fights if others give me the benefit of the doubt as I do them) so will play consistently (which means again, no sweat off my nose), that gives me 1cp. So I can buy Highheeled Hurt, in case they get grabby and I need to protect myself.

Goddess this is so simple. A quirk is a minor disadvantage because it limits your choices in roleplaying. Period. Broad-minded, in any interpretation, limits your choices. Add the appropriate Latin homily ending.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by carllarson

Goddess this is so simple. A quirk is a minor disadvantage because it limits your choices in roleplaying. Period. Broad-minded, in any interpretation, limits your choices. Add the appropriate Latin homily ending.

Yep. Or even more basically:

1) It gives you no "bonus" in game terms, so is not a Perk or Advantage

2) It's a detail by which the GM can give/withhold points for roleplaying.

3) In very limited circumstances, it could conceivably limit the character's choices.

Yep, that's a Quirk all right.

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

You know... If someone were to think that there was only one possible way to read something, but then found out that everyone else apparantly read it differently, you'd think that person might consider the possibility that they were wrong...

I was about to say the same. Over 250 posts and this thread is still marching on at a steady pace.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

You know... If someone were to think that there was only one possible way to read something, but then found out that everyone else apparantly read it differently, you'd think that person might consider the possibility that they were wrong...

I think even he admits that it is clear what the trait should do. However, if we all agree that what the trait should do is limit one's choices and not provide a benefit, doesn't that imply that the text *is* clear?

[kenclary]

I'm going to discontinue posting about Broad-Minded, as I do not wish to go on repeating myself, and plenty of poeple in this thread are making the same or similar points. However, the below is totally worth addressing :)

Originally Posted by kenclary

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.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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.

Reread what I wrote. I gave three examples: one where it would impress someone who admires it, one where it successfully manipulates someone else into doing what you want, and one where it can be performed as a job.

We _could_ get into a very silly conversation where you keep coming up with increasingly pathological variations of "being a jerk" an I keep coming up with scenarios where they could be useful. But, frankly, I don't want to. Given the infinite variety of reality, there are an infinite number of kinds of behavior that, in the right circumstances, can be beneficial.

Generally speaking, QUIRKS ARE NOT ABOUT "BAD" TRAITS. THEY ARE ABOUT LIMITING CHOICE. A player can choose to play their character as a jerk, a sadist, a saint, a liar, a catatonic vegetable... And a trait that limits these can be disadvantageous.

[carllarson]

It is, primarily under the concept of a quirk, and the limiting as a quirk form of Xenophilia. And I understand the idea that the remainder of the trait description could be interpreted as beneficial (if taken in a strictly modern world context where such tolerance is a good thing), and perhaps even in the ways expressed by Figleaf. However, reading the tenses and articles of the description in another way (call it semantics, or syntax, or context), as has been done in this thread already, places the description onto just the character, not his potential acquaintances. And, the second, making a character only issue, fits the definition of a quirk.

We should remember that any trait is applicable only to the character's actions, whether any mechanics are attached to the trait. Quirks, by being mostly non-mechanical, are only reflected in play by the player in accordance with his character concept.

AS far as it goes, also recall that a Broad-minded character reacts the same, friendly, to both Xenophilic and Bloodlusting races, until further interaction changes things. And that interaction could simply be the identification and recollection of the racial habits and/or legends.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Bookman

I think even he admits that it is clear what the trait should do. However, if we all agree that what the trait should do is limit one's choices and not provide a benefit, doesn't that imply that the text *is* clear?

One would think so...

[carllarson]

Originally Posted by kenclary

QUIRKS ARE NOT ABOUT "BAD" TRAITS. THEY ARE ABOUT LIMITING CHOICE.

Actually, isn't this the very basis of not only quirks, but disads in GURPS. They limit how you play your character, and give CP awards for making the contract to play your character in such a way.

After all, if you aren't going to play according to your quirks and disads, why choose them? If it's for the points, not the play, pick something else that doesn't restrict you. Of course then, as it doesn't restrict your play, it isn't really a quirk or disad, and so is worth no CP. (Just like in a campaign where Unaging, frex, doesn't have an application, it could be a perk or even a 0-cp feature. If it doesn't benefit, then it doesn't cost.)

So, rather than debate semantics, its our responsibility to understand that if something is a quirk, it must by definition limit choices, and so you interpret the description thus.

BTW, I consider myself Broad-Minded IRL. And I'm almost militantly so, yet not quite enough for full Xenophilia. And it has caused me some pain, literally and figuratively.