[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Restricted Diet and Slow Eater

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Really? So we're ignoring all the discussions in the last decade plus about how trait costs need to be altered to fit the campaign world?

4E RAW is somewhat inconsistent in this respect. Some traits are inherently costed towards frequency of occurence while others are presented as "always costs this, regardless of circumstances".

It's one of the things I feel a potential 5E should address.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

4E RAW is somewhat inconsistent in this respect. Some traits are inherently costed towards frequency of occurence while others are presented as "always costs this, regardless of circumstances".

Yes... and my point is we've been addressing that in this forum for a decade.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

That reads like an argument for Vow (Vegetarian) being a 0-point feature in modern society.

It typically will require you to have separate dishes at a group meal, which is enough to be a quirk.

There isn't really any TL where it's much more, though, unless accidentally eating meat has has consequences (i.e. it's actually poisonous, or means you need to ritually purify yourself, or something). Beans and rice has been peasant food since TL 1.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not sure that's right. A lot of GURPS traits don't vary that way. Consider Magery 0, for example, which costs 5 points even if you're in a No-Mana setting.

<snort> That's because if Magery is going to be allowed at all, it's never going to be an entirely No-Mana setting. Either the Mana levels will rise or you'll be able to find spots or moments where your mojo will work and if those spots are uncommon that only means nobody will see it coming when you roll out the woo-woo.

[RogerBW]

There are times and places (e.g. rural England or Germany for most of the 20th century, once they were rich enough that meat was commonplace food), where sticking strictly to a non-meat diet will get you at least -1 of reaction modifier from almost everyone who knows about it; they don't hate you for it, but they think you're weird. Whether that stretches beyond Quirk-level is arguable, though; it's certainly not -5.

[Flyndaran]

That's one of the many ways in which acting differently could set you apart from "the norm". It may even qualify as a sign of a secret like religion or ethnicity.
I imagine it would come off as eating like a "pathetic peasant" or living like a miser. In Gurps terms, I think it might come off like like living at a lower Status.


Also using Vegetarianism as an example is problematic as it depends on exactly how one defines it. It's a lot vaguer of a term in common speech than most of us tend to realize.

But I've found that simply not eating mammals gets occasional negative reactions from others here in Oregon. And that obviously doesn't begin to qualify as a "real" dietary restriction.
I suppose that likely means intolerance of those that aren't heavy meat eaters is not uncommon rather than any Gurps disadvantage on my part.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I would imagine that's, because merely by allowing a player to pick Magery, it will be useful some time in the game.

I wouldn’t make any effort to make it so. Or any other world-irrelevant.

[Flyndaran]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Do you mean you wouldn't discourage someone from spending points on traits that will never matter? Even by simply saying it's a non-magic setting?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Yes... and my point is we've been addressing that in this forum for a decade.

That hasn’t changed the RAW. As far as I can tell, some of them explicitly say that. Costs vary with setting, others say nothing, and none explicitly say costs don’t vary with setting As the Roman maxim says, the exception establishes the rule i cases not excepted.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I'm afraid I don't understand. Do you mean you wouldn't discourage someone from spending points on traits that will never matter? Even by simply saying it's a non-magic setting?

Of course I would tell them not to take it. But I would not make it a perk or a feature.

But also, in RAW, ST costs no less at TL12 than at TL0. Examples could be multiplied.