Social stats for heiress and her Pinkerton/bodyguard

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by dcarson

One Advantage that can be a Social bonus, Fashion Sense. Lets you turn dressing unsuitably into a fashion statement and lets you make the party look right and get the +1 in social situations.

Fashion Sense is also fairly cheap at 5 points and can "transfer" to other characters as long as the fashion-sensible character dresses them.

Relatively low-level, low-accessibility Contacts are also cheap and give the character room to expand. (Contacts become more powerful and accessible as the character improves.)

Given the character concept, it seems like her core personal strength, ignoring all the social advantages, should be levels of Charisma and Fearlessness. In Call of Cthulhu terms, decent POW score, but without the magical potential.

[bocephus]

I'm having a bit of difficulty with the overall concept, so Im going to just throw on my GM hat and play a little fast an loose with assumptions. I don't mean any of this in a condescending or 'only my way is right' way. The whole explanation just feels off.
This is where I am having dissonance.

The other character is her NPC bodyguard.
He basically represents her combat power, since she will have little to none of her own.

*I* don't care for this idea, it really feels like your trying to justify giving the Heiress a stack of free advantages in the form of a full point value Ally NPC. Some GMs like to have an NPC in the group and will often make it an introverted support character to limit interactions. I have even done this from time to time when I have a small group that really wants to play but has some glaring hole that needs to be filled.
You can't tie it to a single players PC this thoroughly though, its bad juju for the rest of the table. There is almost guaranteed to be some bad feelings about this.

Object 1
Each Player is given 200pts (example) to build a PC for this game. Technically the points could be split between 2 PCs at 100pts each but its still not the same because realistically each PC should have different motivations. Even a married couple aren't 2 halves of a whole, if there is a disagreement then one half stops supporting the other half for a time. Two 100pt PCs do not equal a single 200pt PC.

The problem here is the Player paid for a 200pt PC with full point advantages, that can not operate independently of an additional 200pt NPC according to your description. This makes a 400pt PC.

But you don't want the Player pay for the NPC as pure Advantages and you realize that you cant build one char with the abilities you want. You want the NPC to 'always' be working on behalf of the Heiress, but you really can't pull it off and still keep the Heiress at the same point value that the other PCs in game are using. You try to find 50+pts in disads to justify ~200pts in advantages.

I don't understand why you're trying to make this work unless possibly Object 2



Object 2
You have stressed two things enough that make me believe there may be some ulterior GM motivation to make sure these things appear in group or the players as a group may struggle with the lack. High social standing/status, and connections to the legal system/military These are advantages that are really hard to do without in a setting like this where ones reputation and social position will make many things much easier and open doors that might otherwise be inaccessible. Is that why your trying to shoehorn so much into one character concept?

Are you just trying to get these advantages into the group without tipping off the players flat out that you don't see a way for them to succeed without having access to these? (I mean this in an observational way, I cant figure out why your putting so much effort into justifying what is arguably a poor character build for your setting)

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________


My gut says you're trying too hard to 'make this work'.

If a player was proposing this to me, I would have to wonder why they think this is fair to the other players. If I was a player and the GM was telling me about this, I would assume the GM is going to coddle this PC because he's allowed a plot protected NPC to be joined at the hip and is trying to convince me that doesn't represent the "advantage" that it seems to so far. (I would sort of expect to see a deal like this if a GM was trying to convince their spouse to play, but having to go to extraordinary lengths to get their buy in, for what ever reason)

If the Heiress is to be the playable PC, then make the bodyguard more two dimensional as Ally/Henchman.
If the Bodyguard needs to be the more playable, then make the heiress more two dimensional as a dependent/patron.

A little reputation/status and Serendipity go a long way for a lower point value NPC that has some plot protection.

Alternative to all this is, take out the direct Heiress/Bodyguard connection and let the Heiress sink or swim on her own merits with legitimate point expenditures. It is possible to play a very unexpected type of character and still have fun/excel in the game. Maybe tweak a little to give her some sort of higher than default defense/offense (she might be a wicked little sneak with a couple small daggers hidden about her person). She's not going to be a martial character, but that doesn't mean she cant contribute, unless the GM/Players don't want to run that kind of game then scrap the idea and start over fresh.

Many players and GMs enjoy where the failures lead a game as much if not more than just succeeding in "completing the module as written".

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by acrosome

2. Both are PCs

That's a bit surprising. In your first post you indicated that the guard would be an Ally of the heiress. Allies are NPCs by definition.

[bocephus]

I might easily be mistaken, I took that to mean each would be built as aPC, or one player playing both PCs.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

That's a bit surprising. In your first post you indicated that the guard would be an Ally of the heiress. Allies are NPCs by definition.

Well, that's sort of one point that I'm asking- is Ally appropriate, since he will have the Sense of Duty? His dedication to her wellbeing seems to go beyond the sense of duty as described in Characters, and I'm not sure how to model that. (That's why, as I said, I flirted with the idea of Fanaticism.) These are both PCs, but unlike bocephus I really don't have a problem with parties that actually have ties to one another. "You all meet in a tavern" sucks in so very many ways. And having ties through the University in particular really works well in this setting, and that's the tie in from the heiress to the other PCs.

Frankly, if Ally isn't appropriate that will help me a bit, since right now my design for the heiress is a bit over points. If that's all I have to do to make this work, hell, that's easy. I could just leave it as a Sense of Duty on the bodyguard's part, but it still seems like having him favor her over the other group members is something that she should pay points for, to me. If an NPC bodyguard would be paid for as an ally, why isn't a PC bodyguard treated the same? But maybe I'm wrong. After all, what happens if/when he get's killed?

And for instance, I didn't mean that the bodyguard literally functions as the heiress's combat capability- the same player doesn't control him. But that is his function in the group- he's a heavy combatant among academics. In other words, he is the equivalent to Frank Glup in the Theron Marks Society. And yes his loyalties lie with the heiress, not necessarily with the rest of the group. So he's the muscle, she's the face, and there is also a professor (and presumably future wizard) and a couple of other students with interesting backgrounds, but those last three are pretty straightforward to design. Hell, there is even an advantage for Tenure.

I figure that if the players are going to play them this way anyway because they like the backstory, well, then the characters might as well be designed this way. As those of you who know me will recall, that's my personal preference for designing GURPS PCs- I try to get them to match a concept, rather than min/maxing. So I'm asking how I design PCs that match this backstory. There is no ulterior meta motive (ahem), so those of you who keep trying to guess it can stop at any time. :) Nor am I trying to "shoehorn" anything in that is unfair to other players. (Not that they would care, actually.) I'm just asking how to do something, and as I said I always trip over social factors. I hope that clarifies things for everyone- also not intending to be condescending or anything.

That being said, yes, whether it is the heiress or the professor who is the "center" of the group is debatable. Her claim is definitely her money and influence, and yes perhaps even her influence over the bodyguard who represents so much of the group's combat capability. It will probably come down to the players' personalities in the end.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Well, that's sort of one point that I'm asking- is Ally appropriate, since he will have the Sense of Duty?

No. That way lies madness. Ally is specifically for NPCs.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by TGLS

No. That way lies madness. Ally is specifically for NPCs.

Actually, a PC can be functionally an Ally. But you don't pay points for them if they are.

[acrosome]

OK, that answers that. Is there a way to make the bodyguard's Sense of Duty a bit more impactful?

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by acrosome

OK, that answers that. Is there a way to make the bodyguard's Sense of Duty a bit more impactful?

Layer it with related Disads. He's got a Sense of Duty, but he's being paid money too, so he's got a Duty (a dangerous one at that). You could also add Compulsiveness and/or Obsession, and possibly an individually Limited version of Guilt Complex.

[whswhs]

Are these two characters being played by one and the same player, or by two different players?

If the same player, and if other players get only one character each, I would flatly forbid this setup; it gives the one player too much of an advantage in camera time. I have run campaigns where every player got two characters (or more), but I've required the secondary characters not to be closely allied with the primary characters; if they were closely allied with anyone, it had to be a different player's primary character. You just don't get rich enough interaction between two characters if they're effectively sock puppets of the same player.

If they're two different players who are effectively playing highly specialized roles, I don't necessarily see any problem.