Obsessions motivating "all actions"

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

But it's also a really specific and ungeneric special case, at least as written. The mechanics ("You have a goal that you pursue at all costs") could potentially be applicable to a wide array of interesting character concepts, even outside its extremely narrow definition.

Vows already exists as an alternative to Obsession. I have seen Obsessed characters. Goblin Slayer is an Obsessed character. I have played an Obsessed character. Her Obsession was "screwing over the nobility". She evaluated every choice she made with regard to "Could this somehow lead to a chance to betray or kill a noble?" She fell in love with a man, but she betrayed him because that gave her a chance to screw over a noble.

[RyanW]

I know this doesn't match the text, but I think it would play better to change Obsession into something like an extreme but narrow Impulsiveness. When faced with an opportunity to advance your goal, you would have to make a self-control roll to avoid dropping everything and pursuing it, or to rationally weigh the consequences. Along with a "always on the lookout for opportunities" and "will not do anything that seriously hurts my chances to succeed".

But until you get word that the six-fingered man is in Florin, your obsession mostly takes the form of staying prepared to act, asking strangers awkward questions about their hands, and not going so far away that such news would never reach you

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

... so instead I'll ask: What is the point? What should the text say instead of "You must justify all actions as an attempt to forward your goal," if that isn't really what it means?

It should say, "you may take no actions that would hinder your pursuit of the goal, unless you first pass a self-control roll".

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Will stop at nothing to achieve that goal: no inherent value -- neither forbids nor requires any actions.

On the contrary, it requires every action which would further the goal. I don't know what fictional character is being referred to here, but let's say it's Carter Burke from the movie Aliens and his obsession is getting promoted within the Weyland-Yutani corporation. Yes, he's allowed to be kind to an orphaned little girl if he wants to be, even if that doesn't help him get promoted. But if that little girl becomes a threat to his promotion prospects he will unhesitatingly lock her in a room with a couple of facehuggers. His obsession requires that action.

That's not how Obsession is written in GURPS but it is how it should be written, and how it is in fact written in Dungeon Fantasy.

A single goal dominates your life and thinking. Make a self-control roll whenever you believe (rightly or wrongly!) a course of action would bring you even a bit closer to this. Failure compels you to pursue that path regardless of the consequences.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Vows already exists as an alternative to Obsession. I have seen Obsessed characters. Goblin Slayer is an Obsessed character.

But Goblin Slayer doesn't justify everything he does as furthering his goal of killing goblins. He purposefully uses cheap gear - even overpays for rush repair jobs when he could use the same money to buy something better - to make certain that if he dies, his death doesn't make goblins stronger. When he finds out that goblins are going to attack the farm in short order, he initially plans to simply fight them - but when Cowgirl refuses to evacuate, he goes to the Adventurer's Guild for help. And when he is asked if the reward he offered - "Everything I have" - included his life, he states it does not - not because dying would stop him from killing more goblins (as GURPS Obsession would require him to justify it as), but because he didn't want to make Cowgirl sad. He goes on "dates" with Cowgirl and Guild Girl during the festival, despite this not advancing his goals at all, and also participates in festival games, giving the rewards to others simply as a kind gesture. When rookie adventurers come to him for advise on fighting giant rats and giant cockroaches, he readily gives it honestly (again, despite his own goal of wiping out goblins being completely unaided by doing so).

Certainly, Goblin Slayer is obsessed with killing goblins, but despite the fact he is a severely emotionally-damaged individual, he doesn't actually match the fluff description from Characters. The definition it sounds like DFRPG uses is a better fit, although even then there are things GS wouldn't do in the pursuit of killing goblins (such as sacrificing teammates). Honestly, GS would probably be more appropriately built with Higher Purpose (Slay Goblins), which has a built-in requirement that the character obsessively pursue their purpose (although honestly, given what I've seen of his performance against non-goblins, Higher Purpose arguably isn't appropriate, as he seems just as effective against other threats).

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Certainly, Goblin Slayer is obsessed with killing goblins, but despite the fact he is a severely emotionally-damaged individual, he doesn't actually match the fluff description from Characters.

I don't know the character. If we were to suppose that he has Obsession, what do you think his self-control number would be? Enough to "occasionally" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals? Enough to "almost always" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals? Only enough to "rarely" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals?

And what exactly is his Obsession? Is it "kill all goblins"? Or is it "stop the goblin threat," and killing them is just one good way of achieving that goal, one which would allow him to justify actions with "so that my death doesn't make them stronger"?

These are all parameters of the disadvantage that have to be specified when taking it. When adapting the disadvantage to an existing character, you have to make sure you define the parameters correctly.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

On the contrary, it requires every action which would further the goal.

No it doesn't. As worded, all it does is permit every action which would further the goal.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

I don't know the character. If we were to suppose that he has Obsession, what do you think his self-control number would be? Enough to "occasionally" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals? Enough to "almost always" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals? Only enough to "rarely" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals?

Rarely. The man's entire overriding purpose is killing goblins. When he's staying at his rented room at Cowgirl's* uncle's farm (rather than camping while out killing goblins), his morning routine consists of checking the entire grounds to make certain it's secure against goblin incursions (and checking to see if there's any evidence of them in the area), maintaining his gear (which he actually keeps fairly filthy, so it smells like the gear goblins use, making it difficult for them to notice his presence via smell), and training, then he goes to town to check for goblin-slaying quests (which he typically takes all of). He studies goblins in-depth, and any trivia he hears or knowledge he gains he pretty much immediately tries to figure out a way to weaponize it against goblins.

*Characters in Goblin Slayer lack proper names, or at least said names are never actually used. So we have Goblin Slayer, Priestess, High Elf Archer, Guild Girl, Burglar, Cowgirl, etc.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

And what exactly is his Obsession? Is it "kill all goblins"? Or is it "stop the goblin threat," and killing them is just one good way of achieving that goal, one which would allow him to justify actions with "so that my death doesn't make them stronger"?

The dialogue treats his Obsession as "Slay all the goblins." But thinking on it further, his Obsession would be more appropriately "Protect everyone from goblins," it's just that the primary method he's decided for doing this is killing them down to the last anytime they crop up. There's a sequence where a character tries to persuade him that he should join in the battle against the Demon King or whatever, to help save the world, and his response is something along the lines of "Yes, but how many villages will be destroyed by goblins while I'm doing that?" And, come to think of it, shifting it that way explains why he won't sacrifice others (he does occasionally use Priestess as bait, but only in situations where he can ensure she's not actually endangered, and he actually uses himself as a decoy more often than even that), making the DFRPG version work well as-is.

But while he's obsessed, he does do things without any mind toward furthering his goals, largely just because people tell him it's the right thing to do (or he figures it's what his sister would have wanted him to do). The fluff text for the GURPS disadvantage disallows this (which is a big part of why I suggested ignoring that bit - if the Obsession Disadvantage cannot accurately portray someone like Goblin Slayer, there's honestly something wrong with that Disadvantage).

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by Anthony

No it doesn't. As worded, all it does is permit every action which would further the goal.

That's a very good point. The disadvantage prevents you (if you fail the self-control roll) from doing anything not related to your goal, but, as far as I can tell from the written rules, nothing prevents you from staying home in a funk if a goal-related opportunity does appear.


This is odd from a characterizations standpoint; it is bad from a game design standpoint because it means it's mostly a trait that locks you out of adventures rather than complicating the ones that do occur. I think, as discussed up-thread, the best thing to do is to play it as if it said "While the obsession need not consume your every waking moment, whenever an apparent opportunity to advance it arises, you must make a self-control roll to avoid pursuing this opportunity even if it means neglecting your duty or walking into an obvious trap". That's easily enough complication to be worth 5-10 points, and it's more interesting, more psychologically plausible, and less hostile to game participation. EDIT: Come to think of it, a disadvantage of that nature really should exist even if Obsession does something else.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The dialogue treats his Obsession as "Slay all the goblins." But thinking on it further, his Obsession would be more appropriately "Protect everyone from goblins," it's just that the primary method he's decided for doing this is killing them down to the last anytime they crop up.

Yeah, the fiction won't be stating things in GURPS terms, so where the fiction says "obsession is killing all goblins," we can't assume that's stated in the GURPS terms of the Obsession disadvantage with the goal "kill all goblins." It might be, but it might translate into game terms as something different.

But while he's obsessed, he does do things without any mind toward furthering his goals, largely just because people tell him it's the right thing to do (or he figures it's what his sister would have wanted him to do). The fluff text for the GURPS disadvantage disallows this

But it doesn't. "Make a self-control roll whenever it would be wise to deviate from your goal." If people are telling him that action X is the right thing to do, but his Obsession tells him to do action Y instead, then doing X instead of Y is a deviation from his goal, and he must make a self-control roll to do X. If he succeeds in the roll and does X instead of Y, he doesn't have to rationalize X.

The sentence about rationalizing all of your actions as an attempt to reach your goal is followed by the sentence about making a self-control roll to deviate from your goal. The self-control roll cancels out the need to rationalize. If I've got an Obsession to "kill all goblins" and I succeed at a self-control roll to "save my friend even though it doesn't kill any goblins," I don't have to rationalize saving my friend as a way to reach my goal of killing all goblins. Successful self-control rolls make exceptions to the need to rationalize.