[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Sense of Duty

[johndallman]

Sense of Duty [-2 to -20] is a mundane self-imposed mental disadvantage. You feel that you have a duty to help or care for some group of people, ranging from an individual [-2] to every living thing [-20]. You place their interests equal to or ahead of your own, at all times. This disadvantage appeared in the first edition of GURPS, and hasn’t changed much.

A Duty disadvantage is enforced externally; Sense of Duty is based on your own feelings. Behaviour like this is already assumed in the pricing of the Ally, Dependent and Patron disadvantages, so you can’t take a Sense of Duty towards such people. NPCs who know you have a Sense of Duty towards them, or others they care about, will react at +2 when deciding if they should trust you under dangerous circumstances. If you go against your Sense of Duty, the GM may penalise you for bad role-playing, although they should be willing to consider justifications. The Basic Set specifically describes having a Sense of Duty towards adventuring companions, and offers the option for the GM to require it. It also gives the GM license to override character actions under such circumstances, which seems a bit heavy-handed to me.

Sense of Duty is a very common disadvantage option on published templates. The more interesting targets for them include “Alien Masters”, “Assassin Cult”, “Crime Victims”, “Cybernetic Microbes”, “Honest Folk”, “Host Vehicle”, “Lord of the Vines”, “Secret Masters”, “Small Animals”, and “Zombies”. There aren’t many rules additions for this disadvantage, but Fantasy has Sense of Duty to places, rather than people, and Power-Ups 6 has rules for scaling it down to a quirk. Social Engineering has important rules on multiple Senses of Duty, which should be considered before taking them.

Sense of Duty seems like a good way of modelling stable relationships between NPCs, who aren’t eligible to have Allies or Dependents under RAW. It seems possible to have a Sense of Duty towards a mundane job that isn’t a Duty, from personal experience.

I quite often take this disadvantage on my PCs, since I find it easy to play, which is always helpful for disadvantages. How has it been important in your games?

[Overheat]

Both as a player and a GM, I have never played a game where it was not a hard, non-negotiable requirement to have Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions).

It is a bit heavy handed to be able to override the player on what the character does, but I have yet to run a game where inter-party conflict is wanted, so I am glad that this advantage exists. It puts actual rules to the sometimes unwritten and unspoken rule that the PCs will always have each others' backs and will not betray each other.

Other uses of Sense of Duty come up occasionally, mostly when wanting something self-imposed that is more flexible than a Vow.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Overheat

Both as a player and a GM, I have never played a game where it was not a hard, non-negotiable requirement to have Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions).

It is a bit heavy handed to be able to override the player on what the character does, but I have yet to run a game where inter-party conflict is wanted, so I am glad that this advantage exists. It puts actual rules to the sometimes unwritten and unspoken rule that the PCs will always have each others' backs and will not betray each other.

I'm aware of that style, and for certain genres it's reasonable or even essential. But I've run more than one campaign where conflicts between PCs were possible. For example, when I ran my first Mage: The Ascension campaign, the PCs sorted themselves out into two largely antagonistic factions: Wu Lung and Virtual Adept vs. Wu-keng and Akashic Brotherhood.

[ericthered]

There is a big difference between not being willing to harm your companions, not being willing to oppose them, and feeling the need to bail them out of trouble.

I think a party that at least has different goals for how they want they want victory to shake out can lead to some good play. But then I often play shorter campaigns rather than longer ones.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Overheat

Both as a player and a GM, I have never played a game where it was not a hard, non-negotiable requirement to have Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions).

.

I've never seen that explicitly but I've also never seen a game where you would not end up doing that so why don't you take it and get the pts?

Of course there are other Disads that people will end up playing but for some reason don't take. Pacifism:Can't Harm Innocents and Greed come to mind.

[WingedKagouti]

SoD(Companions) can be very useful in getting a party to work together for a very short (1 or 2 session) adventure. Whether for complete newbies, strict character sheet based roleplayers or just players at a con who might not know each other and never meet again after the game.

With it, the party won't split up to go do different things without a very good reason to do so (if the GM remembers to poke the players about it). And if it does happen, every member will have a good reason to go help the others if/when needed.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Sense of Duty is one of those disadvantages I've seen commonly taken by my groups. In DF I require SoD (Adventuring Companions) and allow it to break the rule for max disads.

In general, SoD can prevent party infighting and I find that very useful as a GM.

[Alden Loveshade]

Many, if not most, of my PCs have some form of Sense of Duty. But sometimes that's a SoD that's completely unknown to the other PCs or players.

I don't recall ever requiring Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions), but I've been blessed with fellow GURPSians who are more interested in everyone having fun than in "winning" (of course, everyone having fun is a big win).

I personally like it when PCs are sometimes at odds, as long as the players are all enjoying it. While SoD (AC) doesn't completely eliminate that, it does, of course, limit options.

One of my players wisely bought Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions) because he has a PC who has Absent-Mindedness, Clueless, Curious, and Easy to Read. While that PC is the smartest one of the group, she almost constantly has to be told what to do and not do--and SoD makes it work. (In case that PC's player sees this, she's one of the most fun PCs I've ever run with).

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

Many, if not most, of my PCs have some form of Sense of Duty. But sometimes that's a SoD that's completely unknown to the other PCs or players.

I don't recall ever requiring Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions), but I've been blessed with fellow GURPSians who are more interested in everyone having fun than in "winning" (of course, everyone having fun is a big win).

I personally like it when PCs are sometimes at odds, as long as the players are all enjoying it. While SoD (AC) doesn't completely eliminate that, it does, of course, limit options.

One of my players wisely bought Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions) because he has a PC who has Absent-Mindedness, Clueless, Curious, and Easy to Read. While that PC is the smartest one of the group, she almost constantly has to be told what to do and not do--and SoD makes it work. (In case that PC's player sees this, she's one of the most fun PCs I've ever run with).

From the Meta sense it sounds like a good idea as in practice if someone wants to be invited to another game they will likely try to fit in anyway.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Overheat

Both as a player and a GM, I have never played a game where it was not a hard, non-negotiable requirement to have Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions).

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.