[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Sense of Duty

[Overheat]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

If Sense of Duty is required of all player characters, do you even really need to specify Sense of Duty at all? It's not going to be worth points if it's required of everyone. It's just a fact of your game. A 100-point game with a Sense of Duty [-5] requirement is really a 105-point game in disguise.

Most games I run are 150/45/5, and Sense of Duty does take up 5 points of the disad limit, leaving 40 for optional disadvantages. Plus it is nice to have on character sheets as a reminder.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Overheat

Most games I run are 150/45/5, and Sense of Duty does take up 5 points of the disad limit, leaving 40 for optional disadvantages. Plus it is nice to have on character sheets as a reminder.

Personally, if I require a disadvantage for all PCs, I don't include it in the point limit on disadvantages, but that's a GM call. As long as it's done the same for all players, it can work.

I do agree that having a required disad on the character sheet is a good idea--that's the way I do it. To me, the character sheet defines your character, so any disadvantage should be listed as a part of it. And it does avoid the "But why do I have to play that disadvantage--it's not even on my character sheet!" issue.

[Rupert]

I don't require it, but I do expect that all PCs will have a SoD that includes their party or a Code of Honour that includes not betraying their party, and I could be persuaded to allow a Duty that required that instead as long as I was convinced that the character wasn't going to be trying to duck that Duty.

[Otaku]

My main group* never mandated Sense of Duty (Party), or Sense of Duty (Close Friends/Family) but if a character lacked it, they usually had something else fulfilling a similar role.

A major difference is that we weren't all that worried about the party being betrayed from within. I mean, GURPS is GURPS; as long as everyone handles it appropriately, it is just part of the story, part of the adventure, part of the game. Indeed, Sense of Duty (Party) can actually rob you of some good RPG experiences, given how severe GURPS Disadvantages tend to be. From sticking it to each other in-game, to the now zero-chance a player can serious betray the party robbing certain scenes of their impact... yeah, only make such a thing mandatory if it is a campaign that just cannot handle that much Player/Player Character freedom.

*My only sustained group, and sadly one with which I haven't gamed in about 20 years.

[Michael Cule]

A Sense of Duty gives the character a moral compass.

Maybe not a very broad moral compass ("Defend my friends") or a very nice one ("Defend people like me and the hell with everyone else") but it does give the character things that they must do or must refrain from doing.

This gives the GM things to test them against and themselves a structure to their lives.

I very rarely play characters without a SoD. But then I am well known to be a bit of a pain especially when associating with more morally flexible sorts.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Otaku

A major difference is that we weren't all that worried about the party being betrayed from within. I mean, GURPS is GURPS; as long as everyone handles it appropriately, it is just part of the story, part of the adventure, part of the game. Indeed, Sense of Duty (Party) can actually rob you of some good RPG experiences, given how severe GURPS Disadvantages tend to be. From sticking it to each other in-game, to the now zero-chance a player can serious betray the party robbing certain scenes of their impact... yeah, only make such a thing mandatory if it is a campaign that just cannot handle that much Player/Player Character freedom.

That's a fairly accurate description of my approach too.

Back in the dim past, before I ever heard of GURPS, I ran a homebrew supers campaign for some time. Early on, one of the players had a character whose secret identity was a thief. She went out on a crimefighting mission, and had an opportunity to steal something, so she went for it—and another character spotted her doing so and used their powers to shut down hers (which made her visible and no longer able to fly). The first player complained about it for months! His view was that he was playing his character concept, and the other player shouldn't interefere; the second player's view (and mine) was that HIS character concept was that of someone who was law-abiding and didn't want to be associated with criminal activity, and that he had already stretched a point by stopping the first character rather than turning her in, and that the first player was trying to prevent him from playing his own concept.

For some campaigns, SoD (party members) is appropriate. But not for all. Especially, in a drama campaign as opposed to an action campaign, it may prevent the drama that's part of what the campaign is about.