How "Serious" are Disadvantages?

[mr beer]

I've started limiting Disadvantages to ~-25 points and encouraging players to one or two defining Disadvantages. That seems to be easier to roleplay and stretches my credulity a lot less. At -50 points, characters often have a cluster of co-morbid illnesses that should disbar them from society.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I think that by RAW, things are pretty extreme, but in practice, at least among the random people on the internet I've played with (and I've played with quite a few), the disadvantages are rather muted. They are usually present, but we're not perfect actors, and there is some pressure to take disadvantages to fill out your sheet, but not to play them perfectly and punishingly. And as a GM, I already have a lot to do to make the game work without doing unfun things like telling you you're playing your character wrong.

This matches my experience, too, over many years at different GURPS tables. Players (including GMs) need to have leeway to set the right tone for whatever world and genre they are playing in. Some games are cartoony with extreme characters who behave in ways that don't make sense by real-world standards. That can be great fun. If I'm playing in a more realistic game, however, I expect that the gluttonous character won't jump up on the banquet table or steal the Queen's pudding out of her hand. Pocket some royal pastries for later? Absolutely.

This is a good topic for groups to discuss at session zero. When I've seen this go awry has been when folks have different expectations at the table.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'd generally be okay with giving more or less 'normal' people such disadvantages with easy Self Control numbers...but that's because there's a certain rules passage I generally ignore:
"You never have to try a self-control
roll – you can always give in willingly,
and it is good roleplaying to do so." (Characters p121)

I've never interpreted this quite so strictly. Most people I play with typically don't bother with self-control rolls unless there is a compelling reason (often the compelling reason is other PCs telling you not to do something). If I choose Impulsiveness for my character, it means that I want to play an impulsive character. I'll reserve the SC rolls for times when being impulsive might put me or my companions at undue risk. (Or, from a meta-perspective, if I fear that being impulsive will make the game less fun for my fellow players.)

Originally Posted by Otaku

Should the character who embraces their Gluttony (12) get the same points back as a character who is trying to overcome it? What about the character in between; not wallowing in their gluttony but not seeing anything [i]too[/i wrong with it, either?

Any of these interpretations seem fine to me. Regardless, I could see plenty of times when a player might choose not to roll. If I'm playing a gluttonous character, of whatever sort, I want that to come out in my characterizations. So if I'm trying to overcome my gluttony, I might find a good opportunity in a scene to fail my roll on purpose, grabbing a donut and saying, "Donuts! My nemesis. I know I'll regret this later..." And then I'd find lots of opportunities to mention my latest fad diet (while packing a forbidden item in my bag, "just in case"). I'd save the die roll for times when the issue might have a true cost: loss of face, disruption of negotiations, dangerous food, etc.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Thamior

"Never have too", "Too often", "May penalize". I'm reading it like it's kind of at GM's discretion. And that GM can take into account the severity of disadvantage, how often is too often, etc. This passage is there to facilitate roleplaying. And good roleplaying is awarded with bonus points in GURPS.

I don't have much faith in 'GM's discretion', I think.

But that aside, I would question what in that passage is supposed to facilitate roleplaying. It indicates that one kind of roleplaying (not attempting self-control) is good, and another kind (attempting self-control often) is potentially bad. I don't see how that would make roleplaying easier. (And I don't agree with its expressed preference either.)

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Dalin

I've never interpreted this quite so strictly. Most people I play with typically don't bother with self-control rolls unless there is a compelling reason (often the compelling reason is other PCs telling you not to do something). If I choose Impulsiveness for my character, it means that I want to play an impulsive character. I'll reserve the SC rolls for times when being impulsive might put me or my companions at undue risk. (Or, from a meta-perspective, if I fear that being impulsive will make the game less fun for my fellow players.)

That seems like you're explaining why you don't see that as being constraining, rather than how you don't interpret it strictly?

(Impulsiveness also may be one of the more attractive options. Consider Greed - the text of which ends with the statement that "it is almost a foregone conclusion that you will eventually do something illegal." And that's in reference to the large bonuses to resist illegal opportunities that apply if a character is also Honest! If you don't exercise self-control over Greed at all, you'll do literally anything for a buck. Or there's Indecisiveness, Confused, or Chronic Depression all of which effectively paralyze you.)

[gmillerd]

Originally Posted by DevoutGuardsman

I'm curious: do Disadvantages function like constant compulsions or are they viable as occasionally acting in a specific way? Or is it up to roleplay.

You are citing some traits that are low points, -5 and -10. They are not extreme, but if you were to have these people as employees or reports; it would be something of a concern quarterly no doubt likely to avoid following procedures causing problems ... alebit not "extreme".

You cite Impulsive as -15, it reads as -10, but if you boost it to -15, that would be nearing "extreme". And of course that personality issue likely isn't the only flaw that character has. God forbid in find a synergy elsewhere in the character or in another character.

Maths

In the end, just do the maths. B120 has the "self control for mental disadvantages", so for that 15 point Impulsiveness (base is -10, you +50%'ed it) which means it went from a 12 target to a 9 target to resist. Rolling a 9 or less ... yikes ... loose cannon.

This is a character that needs supervision and monitoring (I often think Impulsive is a social disadvantage as 'compulsive idiot' to the other party members). If they at all gullible or passionate about something, fox news could have them looking for the basement at a pizza place or a late night tv infomercial could have them penniless.

Compare

GURPS traits are largely balanced (albeit in a vacuum from each other at times and sometimes a strong combat focus). But if you look at other -10 or -15 point traits, you are in a world of traits that run people's lives from time to time.

If you have a 10pt trait as a IRL person, that is a defining characteristic. People would know you as "that impulsive guy" surely.

Where if at -5 points less so and at -15 points they might think "yeah, that guy that quit work and joined the marines without telling his wife". Likely you are going to lose your job as a Cop and as a Criminal -- so bad.

[AlexanderHowl]

High self-control numbers, even in the worst disadvantages, are playable. Lower self-control numbers are problematic unless they are mitigated. For example, someone with Impulsive (6-; Mitigator, Daily medicine, -60%) [-8] and Lecherousness (6-; Mitigator, Daily medicine, -60%) [-12] would be fine as long as they received their medication, but they would become a nightmare to deal with when they missed their doses.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That seems like you're explaining why you don't see that as being constraining, rather than how you don't interpret it strictly?

Yeah, maybe I strayed off-point. I guess I don't find it particularly constraining and I read the rule more as a suggestion than a hard-and-fast regulation. I have not yet played at a table where the GM enforced the idea that you shouldn't make self-control rolls "except in rare and critical cases." But maybe this is just semantics. I figure "adventurers" get into "rare and critical" situations pretty much every session. Ultimately, for most non-supernatural disadvantages, I always fall back on the question, "Does this seem to be modeling something believable?" If a narrow interpretation of RAW leads to (IMHO, of course) silly or cartoonish results, then I interpret them more loosely.

For example, I've heard people on these forums interpret Honesty so narrowly that it seems unplayable. I feel like I know many honest people in real life who are obnoxiously law-abiding but aren't obsessed with memorizing every minor regulation on the books of every town they enter. I still find that my looser interpretation provides plenty of great role-playing opportunities and challenges. Having an Honest character in the group is regularly a pain in the butt. It just doesn't routinely paralyze the party or require them to sedate the honest character and toss them in the trunk. (Unless we're playing an over-the-top genre, of course!)

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

(Impulsiveness also may be one of the more attractive options. . . . If you don't exercise self-control over Greed at all, you'll do literally anything for a buck. Or there's Indecisiveness, Confused, or Chronic Depression all of which effectively paralyze you.)

If I were playing a Greedy character, I would generally roleplay their greed as a significant personality trait: always asking for a reward, paying attention to new job opportunities, get-rich-quick schemes, etc. Again, I would only roll if it seemed like a big deal, which I would usually gauge by what the rest of the party wanted to do. I don't like using disads as excuses to hog the spotlight. If I were adventuring in Hellsgate or somewhere with lots of dangerous temptations, I might roll versus self-control all the time. In Hobbiton, not so much.

Similarly, with something like Indecisive, I try to inject lots of moments when I would be dithering over silly things (stuck at the store deciding between brands of milk, painfully slow ordering a drink at a bar, etc.) I would reserve the rolls for when the party is depending on me to make a decision quickly.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Dalin

Yeah, maybe I strayed off-point. I guess I don't find it particularly constraining and I read the rule more as a suggestion than a hard-and-fast regulation. I have not yet played at a table where the GM enforced the idea that you shouldn't make self-control rolls "except in rare and critical cases." But maybe this is just semantics. I figure "adventurers" get into "rare and critical" situations pretty much every session. Ultimately, for most non-supernatural disadvantages, I always fall back on the question, "Does this seem to be modeling something believable?" If a narrow interpretation of RAW leads to (IMHO, of course) silly or cartoonish results, then I interpret them more loosely.

While I consider cartoonish results usually undesirable, I do think we've gotten fairly frequent editorial opinions that that's what we're supposed to see from above-quirk-level Disadvantages.

I would agree that adventurers have a lot of exceptional situations during gaming sessions that would provide opportunities to exercise self control while probably not getting penalized. But your PC also has those Disadvantages during off-screen time and slice-of-life scenes.

Originally Posted by Dalin

If I were playing a Greedy character, I would generally roleplay their greed as a significant personality trait: always asking for a reward, paying attention to new job opportunities, get-rich-quick schemes, etc. Again, I would only roll if it seemed like a big deal, which I would usually gauge by what the rest of the party wanted to do. I don't like using disads as excuses to hog the spotlight. If I were adventuring in Hellsgate or somewhere with lots of dangerous temptations, I might roll versus self-control all the time. In Hobbiton, not so much.

Similarly, with something like Indecisive, I try to inject lots of moments when I would be dithering over silly things (stuck at the store deciding between brands of milk, painfully slow ordering a drink at a bar, etc.) I would reserve the rolls for when the party is depending on me to make a decision quickly.

This is a thing I see a lot and don't really understand: many self-control Disadvantages say that you must do a thing whenever a condition applies (whenever you risk physical danger, whenever riches are 'offered', "whenever you have more than the briefest contact with an appealing member of the sex you find attractive"). And many people seem to automatically tone those down to "once in a while when there's a particularly obtrusive trigger".

This creates a really big divergence on perception of how 'heavy' the Disadvantages are.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

This is a thing I see a lot and don't really understand: many self-control Disadvantages say that you must do a thing whenever a condition applies (whenever you risk physical danger, whenever riches are 'offered', "whenever you have more than the briefest contact with an appealing member of the sex you find attractive"). And many people seem to automatically tone those down to "once in a while when there's a particularly obtrusive trigger".

I believe it reflects the idea that GURPS rules are for adventures, not everyday life. Unless you're playing Adventures in Grocery Shopping, you're not going to play out a food-shopping trip, so situations like being unable to decide between products, hitting on all the customers and employees, and believing every bit of marketing aren't going to be played out, and so won't affect you.

So mental disadvantages are a significant part of a character's personality, but they don't interfere with the character's entire life. Their frequency and strength are appropriate for just the adventuring part of your life, not all of it.