Social benifits of gear - Page 2

Lupo · 12-31-2010, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

How does one replicate the benifits of wearing more expensive clothing in GURPS?

Using the "cost of living" rules on Campaigns. A full set of clothes costs a percentage of the cost of living, so it is proportional to Status: higher-status characters who do not want to "lose face" will be obliged to spend more money on clothes.

Status 0 characters who want to save money can buy cheap, unbranded clothes at markets or hard-discount shops (e.g., Status -1 clothes), therefore suffering reaction penalties.

Bruno · 12-31-2010, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lupo

Status 0 characters who want to save money can buy cheap, unbranded clothes at markets or hard-discount shops (e.g., Status -1 clothes), therefore suffering reaction penalties.

This sort of "conspicuous consumption" is why people who have fallen onto financial hard times tend to sacrifice parts of their food budget before the more visible luxuries - most of the time, people won't have a chance to notice that you're having pancakes for dinner AGAIN in the privacy of your own home, and you're still wearing nice clothes as you drive to work in an expensive car. Meanwhile the family is privately hoping that their situation will reverse itself before they have to make more... visible cuts that amount to a loss of Status (sell the car, move to a smaller home, start shopping at K-Mart, etc).

rosignol · 12-31-2010, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lupo

Using the "cost of living" rules on Campaigns. A full set of clothes costs a percentage of the cost of living, so it is proportional to Status: higher-status characters who do not want to "lose face" will be obliged to spend more money on clothes.

....and it's entirely reasonable to rule that the additional expense of a higher-status lifestyle includes appropriate goods.

fredtheobviouspseudonym · 12-31-2010, 09:41 PM

It's been a cliche (but yet possibly true) that in the US Marine Corps the wearing (in non-parade situations) of officially obsolete gear or faded utility uniforms is "salty," i.e., conveys to other Marines that the wearer is an old hand. This in turn is supposed to increase the wearer's status to a degree regardless of rank. (See William Manchester's "Goodbye Darkness" for an example.)

Not sure how senior NCOs would react to a younger Marine presuming on this. (Isn't this what Savoir-Faire (Military) is supposed to cover?)

quarkstomper · 01-01-2011, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

It's been a cliche (but yet possibly true) that in the US Marine Corps the wearing (in non-parade situations) of officially obsolete gear or faded utility uniforms is "salty," i.e., conveys to other Marines that the wearer is an old hand. This in turn is supposed to increase the wearer's status to a degree regardless of rank. (See William Manchester's "Goodbye Darkness" for an example.)

Sounds to me like a level of Social Regard, but only from other Marines.

rosignol · 01-01-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quarkstomper

Sounds to me like a level of Social Regard, but only from other Marines.

Or maybe it's just a way to tip off the others that you're not an FNG without having to come out and actually say it.

~~Peter Knutsen~~ · 01-02-2011, 09:38 AM

In AD&D, you don't want to avoid fights, because you need to kill foes to get XPs.

Not so in GURPS. In GURPS (and indeed most other RPG systems) your character has goals that he wants to reach. It doesn't matter where those goals come from, dictated by the GM, or arising from realistic internal motivation. Your character has goals. Even long-term complex goals break down into smaller tactical sub-goals. Reaching these goals may be a reward in itself (fun for the player), or may give XPs (crucially: regardless of how the goal was accmplished, and regardless of how few or many foes the PCs had to kill), or may give in-world rewards such as money, special gear or social advantages. The point is, it's about the goals, not about killing.

NPCs often stand in the way of your character reach such sub-goals, and may have to be fought. Sometimes that's fun, which is a metagame benefit (the player's fun does not affect the character), but often it's just a lot of tedious dice rolls to reach the predictable victory, with the loot consisting of a few farthings and some mundane gear that isn't worth the encumbrance at all.

Boring, and nicely skippable if you can convince the NPCs that they aren't going to win, thus geting them to back down.

In other cases, NPCs cannot immediately be convinced to back down, but will do so after a few dice rolls prove that yes, the PCs are the side with the greater prowess. Again, a lot of tedium is avoided, routine enemies are defeated with a minimum of boring rolls, and you're not missing out on anything. You're not missing out on any XPs, and the loot was unlikely to be at all interesting anyway.

In other cases again, the PC party may even be able to bluff and intimidate their way past NPCs that they do not outclass. I stand by my earlier post saying that the basic model should probably revolve around penalizing the PCs for not wearing sufficiently classy gear, rather than around rewarding them for over-blinging, but in this particular case, it could make sense to give a minor bonus to Intimidation skill rolls, or the like, for wearing really fancy-looking gear.

Apart from NPCs-as-obstacles, there are also NPCs as potential employers. Some GMs have decided how events will turn out beforehand. Mr. Johnson the NPC will hire the PCs, no matter what, because that's the story that the GM wants to force down the players' throats. I won't go into the wrongness of that here, but just point out that in realistic situations, the way it works is that the NPC makes a decision about whether or not to hire the PCs, taking many factors into account. One of those factors should be his first impresion of the PCs, highly influenced by their apparent professionalism (appropriately fancy gear) or lack thereoff, and if evaluating them as a party, he could very well focus mostly on the lowest common denominator, the least blinged-out of the PCs.

PCs might also go looking for work, ask around, trying to find an employer that will give them a task of some kind. Likewise, here appearance can count for a lot, including apparent professionalism, with the NPC making a realistic decision heavily influenced by this, either deciding whether or not to employ the PCs, or else decding what kind of work to offer them. His choice might be between asking them to elminate some spiders and rats infesting his basement, or travelling 4-5 days away to deal with a large camp of Orc mercenaries. If the PCs do not look like pro's, they will be offered the boring assignment. And not as a stepping stone to the more exciting quest, but as the only job, because the NPC does not think they can do the more dangerousjob, and doing the boring job won't make him change his mind.

sir_pudding · 01-02-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

Not sure how senior NCOs would react to a younger Marine presuming on this. (Isn't this what Savoir-Faire (Military) is supposed to cover?)

An ass-chewing as in all things.

12-31-2010, 09:41 PM	#14
fredtheobviouspseudonym Join Date: May 2007	Also in some military units -- It's been a cliche (but yet possibly true) that in the US Marine Corps the wearing (in non-parade situations) of officially obsolete gear or faded utility uniforms is "salty," i.e., conveys to other Marines that the wearer is an old hand. This in turn is supposed to increase the wearer's status to a degree regardless of rank. (See William Manchester's "Goodbye Darkness" for an example.) Not sure how senior NCOs would react to a younger Marine presuming on this. (Isn't this what Savoir-Faire (Military) is supposed to cover?)

01-02-2011, 09:38 AM	#17
~~Peter Knutsen~~ Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Europe	Re: Social benifits of gear In AD&D, you don't want to avoid fights, because you need to kill foes to get XPs. Not so in GURPS. In GURPS (and indeed most other RPG systems) your character has goals that he wants to reach. It doesn't matter where those goals come from, dictated by the GM, or arising from realistic internal motivation. Your character has goals. Even long-term complex goals break down into smaller tactical sub-goals. Reaching these goals may be a reward in itself (fun for the player), or may give XPs (crucially: regardless of how the goal was accmplished, and regardless of how few or many foes the PCs had to kill), or may give in-world rewards such as money, special gear or social advantages. The point is, it's about the goals, not about killing. NPCs often stand in the way of your character reach such sub-goals, and may have to be fought. Sometimes that's fun, which is a metagame benefit (the player's fun does not affect the character), but often it's just a lot of tedious dice rolls to reach the predictable victory, with the loot consisting of a few farthings and some mundane gear that isn't worth the encumbrance at all. Boring, and nicely skippable if you can convince the NPCs that they aren't going to win, thus geting them to back down. In other cases, NPCs cannot immediately be convinced to back down, but will do so after a few dice rolls prove that yes, the PCs are the side with the greater prowess. Again, a lot of tedium is avoided, routine enemies are defeated with a minimum of boring rolls, and you're not missing out on anything. You're not missing out on any XPs, and the loot was unlikely to be at all interesting anyway. In other cases again, the PC party may even be able to bluff and intimidate their way past NPCs that they do not outclass. I stand by my earlier post saying that the basic model should probably revolve around penalizing the PCs for not wearing sufficiently classy gear, rather than around rewarding them for over-blinging, but in this particular case, it could make sense to give a minor bonus to Intimidation skill rolls, or the like, for wearing really fancy-looking gear. Apart from NPCs-as-obstacles, there are also NPCs as potential employers. Some GMs have decided how events will turn out beforehand. Mr. Johnson the NPC will hire the PCs, no matter what, because that's the story that the GM wants to force down the players' throats. I won't go into the wrongness of that here, but just point out that in realistic situations, the way it works is that the NPC makes a decision about whether or not to hire the PCs, taking many factors into account. One of those factors should be his first impresion of the PCs, highly influenced by their apparent professionalism (appropriately fancy gear) or lack thereoff, and if evaluating them as a party, he could very well focus mostly on the lowest common denominator, the least blinged-out of the PCs. PCs might also go looking for work, ask around, trying to find an employer that will give them a task of some kind. Likewise, here appearance can count for a lot, including apparent professionalism, with the NPC making a realistic decision heavily influenced by this, either deciding whether or not to employ the PCs, or else decding what kind of work to offer them. His choice might be between asking them to elminate some spiders and rats infesting his basement, or travelling 4-5 days away to deal with a large camp of Orc mercenaries. If the PCs do not look like pro's, they will be offered the boring assignment. And not as a stepping stone to the more exciting quest, but as the only job, because the NPC does not think they can do the more dangerousjob, and doing the boring job won't make him change his mind.