Obsessions motivating "all actions"

[VIVIT]

As written, the Obsession disadvantage seems a bit odd. It has a diegetic description, and it has mechanical effects, but the description has a lot of details that don't seem to follow from how the disadvantage actually works, and have some pretty weird implications for roleplay. Bold emphasis mine, italic emphasis sic:

Originally Posted by B146

Your entire life revolves around a single goal. Unlike Compulsive Behavior (p. 128), this is not a daily habit, but an overpowering fixation that motivates all of your actions. And unlike Fanaticism (p. 136), this does not necessarily imply a set of philosophical beliefs.

Right from the start we have verbiage characteristic of
the "kooky nutcase" type of disadvantage that dictates characterization and derives its point value from reaction penalties that result from the behavior it leads to. The next paragraph begins with a statement that, seems to describe a something really extreme:

Originally Posted by ibid

You must rationalize all of your actions as an attempt to reach your goal.

As written, this suggests that even basic survival behaviors like eating and drinking must be justified with "If I die, I won't be able to achieve my obsession," or the like. That sort of thing is, quite literally, insane, and appropriate only to a relatively narrow range of character archetypes. But the mechanical meat of the trait is a lot more general than that:

Originally Posted by ibid

… Make a self-control roll whenever it would be wise to deviate from your goal. If you fail, you continue to pursue your Obsession, regardless of the consequences.

Here the text makes it clear that it's not really about what you're like as a person so much as about the way that the obsession restricts your choices and potentially interferes with other interests, like Greed, Curious, Selfless, or even social disads like Duty. And the paragraph on point cost says this:

Originally Posted by ibid

If your Obsession causes others to react badly, take Odious Personal Habit (p. 22) or Delusion (p. 130) as well.

Making it explicitly clear that obsessions do not come with general reaction penalties!

How do you interpret this disad? The bit about the obsession needing to motivate all of your action for to me like ungeneric fluff: Without it, the disad becomes a fill-in-the-blank character motivation in the form of a long-term goal that requires an SC roll any time you want to take a course of action that interferes with or sets back this goal, passes up an opportunity to make major progress on that goal, etc.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Without it, the disad becomes a fill-in-the-blank character motivation in the form of a long-term goal that requires an SC roll any time you want to take a course of action that interferes with or sets back this goal, passes up an opportunity to make major progress on that goal, etc.

That's about how I play it - except you also need a Self Control roll to engage in any significant action that doesn't advance your goal.

It amounts to either most of your day needs to be spent doing something relevant to your goal, or you need make a roll not to. If the party wants to take a job that doesn't advance it, you roll every day not to leave the party, probably forever. That's crippling enough in a cooperative game to more than earn the points.

[Stormcrow]

We must remember that this is a game rule, not an element in a life simulator. When it says "You must rationalize all of your actions as an attempt to reach your goal," remember that "your actions" refers to the actions that you direct your character to take during the game. You don't need to announce your rationalization for eating and drinking every time you eat and drink, but if someone asked you why you're stopping to eat and drink instead of marching on to accomplish your goal, you certainly would say that you need to eat and drink to stay alive and accomplish your goal. (And, of course, you aren't required to discuss your Obsession with others. "Why are you stopping to eat when the Dark Lord you want to kill still lives?" "Shut up, I'm eating.")

The purpose of the disadvantage is twofold, as with most mental disadvantages with control rolls: to give players a hook for roleplaying that will earn them bonus character points when they play it up, and to force characters to take actions that the player got extra character points for saying they'd do. Obsession works according to these two purposes perfectly: players have the goal they're Obsessed about as a roleplaying hook, and the Obsession forces their characters to sometimes take actions they don't want them to take.

The problem with "all actions" needing to be justified isn't with Obsession, it's with the perverse player who wants to poke at the rules and say, "Oh yeah? Do you have to justify going to the bathroom? Do you have to justify every breath? Do you have to justify wearing purple socks instead of pink socks?" The insanity comes from these ridiculous questions, not from the disadvantage. If you just take the disadvantage as it's obviously meant to be taken, where the character has an overriding motivation for what they do, there's no problem with Obsession.

But yes, if you have an Obsession, then any action you want to take that deviates from that goal must pass a control roll. What constitutes deviation may not be clear-cut: walking a mile to the south when your Obsession is about something to the north may not be a deviation if going south helps you make progress toward accomplishing your goal. Obsession doesn't mean stupidly charging headlong toward an overpowering enemy if the goal is to defeat them.

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

We must remember that this is a game rule, not an element in a life simulator. When it says "You must rationalize all of your actions as an attempt to reach your goal," remember that "your actions" refers to the actions that you direct your character to take during the game.

Obsession isn't a meta disadvantage. It's a facet of your character's psychology. Even offscreen, they're still obsessed—just as someone with Bad Temper presumably remains ill-tempered even between adventures.

You don't need to announce your rationalization for eating and drinking every time you eat and drink, but if someone asked you why you're stopping to eat and drink instead of marching on to accomplish your goal, you certainly would say that you need to eat and drink to stay alive and accomplish your goal.

I'm not talking about what the character says when asked; I'm talking about what's going on inside the character's head. The wording of the disadvantage suggests that the character rationalizes, not just all actions, but all actions, as part of their plan to achieve their goal. Which suggests that they are fixating about the goal at all hours of the day in a manner that would completely dominate the character's life—and their character concept with it! As written, it suggests that they can't have hobbies, pastimes, or even normal interpersonal relationships, because everything they do has to be done with their Obsession in mind.

The purpose of the disadvantage is twofold, as with most mental disadvantages with control rolls: to give players a hook for roleplaying that will earn them bonus character points when they play it up, and to force characters to take actions that the player got extra character points for saying they'd do. Obsession works according to these two purposes perfectly: players have the goal they're Obsessed about as a roleplaying hook, and the Obsession forces their characters to sometimes take actions they don't want them to take.

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.

The problem with "all actions" needing to be justified isn't with Obsession, it's with the perverse player who wants to poke at the rules and say, "Oh yeah? Do you have to justify going to the bathroom? Do you have to justify every breath? Do you have to justify wearing purple socks instead of pink socks?" The insanity comes from these ridiculous questions, not from the disadvantage. If you just take the disadvantage as it's obviously meant to be taken, where the character has an overriding motivation for what they do, there's no problem with Obsession.

I don't find that interpretation obvious at all. The text says "You must rationalize all of your actions as an attempt to reach your goal"—with the "all" in italics. When I first read the disad as, my thought was, "Wait, all actions? That sounds really extreme." I had a specific, preexisting fictional character in mind, who:

• Has a particular goal,
• Will stop at nothing to achieve that goal, and
• Invites dire consequences on himself and his friends by the extreme measures he takes to achieve his goal.

But he's a dynamic, three-dimensional, and very human and relatable character with a lot more to him than his obsession. He has preferences, he has interests, he has things he does and says that aren't directly related to his goal at all, and I don't assume that he's coming up with some wildly contrived connection between those little things he does and the One Big Thing he's trying to do. For those reasons, it felt like a real stretch to call him Obsessed in the GURPS sense, but that was the closest thing I could find.

Your interpretation of Obsession seems like a decent one, but I'm not getting it from the text at all. I would ask how you're getting from "all actions" to whatever specific subset of actions you believe that clause to refer to, but I know that would be missing the point, 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?

[Varyon]

I'd be inclined to interpret that "all actions" bit as non-binding fluff, precisely because it makes a severely dysfunctional character. Of course, that's kind of the case for all of the Self Control Disadvantages if taken above Quirk level, although the GM opting to apply Task Difficulty Modifiers to the rolls (and maybe treat 20+ as not needing a roll) can smooth that out a bit (a character with Bloodlust should have a higher chance of resisting his compulsion to kill that high-ranking enemy general the party has specifically been tasked with capturing alive than doing so toward a random patrolling guard on the way there).

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

But he's a dynamic, three-dimensional, and very human and relatable character with a lot more to him than his obsession. He has preferences, he has interests, he has things he does and says that aren't directly related to his goal at all, and I don't assume that he's coming up with some wildly contrived connection between those little things he does and the One Big Thing he's trying to do. For those reasons, it felt like a real stretch to call him Obsessed in the GURPS sense, but that was the closest thing I could find.

He isn't Obsessed. In fact he likely has no particular disadvantage related to his goal at all. You don't get points for having a goal. You get points for giving up options a normal person would have (this is the case for Obsession, no you [can't] have a hobby, or a family you care about as much as the goal or whatever), or for being forced to take risks or pay prices normal people would shy away from (the case of Fanaticism, the other major GURPS model for crazed goals).

If you have goals but don't give up on a normal life, and can say "you know what, that should work but is just too dangerous/costs too much, I'll wait for a better opportunity" then your goals are probably worth zero points. Well OK, most GMs will allow you a quirk for just about any goal that will come up in play, but close.

Your interpretation of Obsession seems like a decent one, but I'm not getting it from the text at all. I would ask how you're getting from "all actions" to whatever specific subset of actions you believe that clause to refer to, but I know that would be missing the point, 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?

This is a meta-problem with a lot of GURPS trait interpretations. Of all RPG rules actually, and one we've been arguing over since the creation of the hobby. Most rules, and certainly the GURPS trait rules, aren't intended to be used that way and never were. You shouldn't select some traits and try to figure out how it forces you to behave. They work the other way around, you figure out how your character behaves, or describe what he is attempting, or what situation he is in, and try to turn that into game mechanics. In the case of GURPS traits it basically is intended to work by discussing with the GM to decide what mechanics to use for what you can (or can't) do and how many points to pay (or get back for being bound by them) using the lists provided as guidelines for some common situations.

It's a [role playing][game] for a reason - slavishly following the letter of the rules gets the [game] part, but that other element matters too. That is, there really is nothing the wording "should be", all traits are necessarily more flexible than you can put into a short description. It's true GURPS managed to simultaneously fuzz that up and make it even more vital with the introduction of Enhancements and Limitations, but it's still a key insight to being able to play any game in a way that doesn't convince half your group you are a munchkin rules lawyer out to ruin the fun.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Obsession isn't a meta disadvantage. It's a facet of your character's psychology. Even offscreen, they're still obsessed—just as someone with Bad Temper presumably remains ill-tempered even between adventures.

I'm not calling Obsession a meta-disadvantage. It's a facet of a character's psychology, but the rules you're questioning are geared toward operating a character in play; they are not a medical diagnosis. When the character is not being played, they don't need to make self-control rolls and you can't get bonus character points from the disadvantage, even if you still need to describe what happens during the downtime according to the parameters of the disadvantage.

I'm not talking about what the character says when asked; I'm talking about what's going on inside the character's head. The wording of the disadvantage suggests that the character rationalizes, not just all actions, but all actions, as part of their plan to achieve their goal. Which suggests that they are fixating about the goal at all hours of the day in a manner that would completely dominate the character's life—and their character concept with it! As written, it suggests that they can't have hobbies, pastimes, or even normal interpersonal relationships, because everything they do has to be done with their Obsession in mind.

Hobbies, pastimes, and normal interpersonal relationships are difficult for someone with Obsession. That's a pretty normal truth of obsessed characters in all sorts of fiction. They can do things that aren't in line with their obsession, but they need to make a self-control roll to do so. Someone with Obsession (15) probably seems to lead a fairly normal-looking life so long as you don't get to know them too well.

The text says "You must rationalize all of your actions as an attempt to reach your goal"—with the "all" in italics. When I first read the disad as, my thought was, "Wait, all actions? That sounds really extreme."

Occam's Razor. If it seems very unlikely that Obsession is that extreme, then it probably isn't.

I had a specific, preexisting fictional character in mind, who:

• Has a particular goal,
• Will stop at nothing to achieve that goal, and
• Invites dire consequences on himself and his friends by the extreme measures he takes to achieve his goal.

But he's a dynamic, three-dimensional, and very human and relatable character with a lot more to him than his obsession. He has preferences, he has interests, he has things he does and says that aren't directly related to his goal at all, and I don't assume that he's coming up with some wildly contrived connection between those little things he does and the One Big Thing he's trying to do. For those reasons, it felt like a real stretch to call him Obsessed in the GURPS sense, but that was the closest thing I could find.

As others have said, either he doesn't actually have Obsession or he has it with a high self-control number. And as I said before, GURPS disadvantages aren't diagnoses. Someone without the Obsession disadvantage might still be diagnosed by a professional with some kind of obsessive compulsion; it's just not at the point that control of the character is taken out of the player's hands.

Your interpretation of Obsession seems like a decent one, but I'm not getting it from the text at all. I would ask how you're getting from "all actions" to whatever specific subset of actions you believe that clause to refer to, but I know that would be missing the point,

It would be missing the point, because I didn't say anything about a specific subset of actions the clause refers to. I said the presence of the disadvantage confers a game-mechanical effect and isn't part of a psychological simulation.

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?

I don't see any problem with the text as it stands, because that is what the statement means in the context of a roleplaying game. It means everything you make your character do must be justified as part of forwarding the character's goal (unless you want to avoid doing that and make a successful self-control roll).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

I had a specific, preexisting fictional character in mind, who:

• Has a particular goal,
• Will stop at nothing to achieve that goal, and
• Invites dire consequences on himself and his friends by the extreme measures he takes to achieve his goal.

The character may not have a disadvantage at all, and if he does, it's some sort of reaction modifier (OPH, reputation). A disadvantage with a self-control number either forbids or requires particular actions, and (to be worth points) those actions have to be ones that a reasonable person would want to take or avoid in order to achieve their goals. Of your three points:

• Has a particular goal: no inherent value; characters are assumed to have goals. Some goals, if acted on, will result in reaction modifiers; that's normally a reputation or OPH.
• Will stop at nothing to achieve that goal: no inherent value -- neither forbids nor requires any actions.
• Invites dire consequences on himself and his friends by the extreme measures he takes to achieve his goal.: again, probably a reputation or OPH.

[Anaraxes]

If read literally and taken to absolutes, nearly all mental Disads in GURPS are unplayable. As noted upthread, that can be taken as an indication that you shouldn't read them that way.

[RGTraynor]

(shrugs) Yeah, it's extreme. (And as such, is badly lowballed in terms of point cost.) That's why it's not a suitable disad for PCs. I don't allow it in my campaign, and therefore don't worry about it. Problem solved.