Disads: the Second Best CP Deal in GURPS

[Black Leviathan]

We source some XP based on disadvantages/quirks so it's an added motivation to go all out and not buy-off disadvantages that are played in character.

I've actually been second-guessing the wisdom of taking full disadvantages. The difference between -40 points in disadvantages and -30 points in disadvantages is actually not that impressive and it's caught up to in about 3 game sessions usually. Rather than searching through disadvantages for that last 5 or 10 points that you're not going to enjoy playing, maybe start the game 1pt lower in HT or start with a Will hit or some softer skills.

[mr beer]

The latest game I'm running, I soft-capped Disadvantages to -25 / max of 3 total because I got very tired of grab-bags of -5 point Disadvantages that never came up in play.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I am entirely in agreement. I has seemed plain to me since I first encountered Champions that disad caps are a concession that the rewards games pay for taking disadvantages are greater than the burden of the disadvantages. I suppose that the reason for it in Champions is that the designers wanted to make the PCs come out like comic-book superheroes. James Bond 007, which doesn't need to use disads to balance in features of characters who are very different from a healthy man of mainstream culture and military age, is much less generous with them.

I always thought when playing and running Champions that the disads were mostly too generously priced, probably to encourage people to take lots of flaws (especially enemies and the psychological disads) so they'd be like the four-colour supers of the comics.

I find GURPS' to be more reasonably priced, in general. In my experience players tend to only fish for disads when point budgets are tight, and they are careful to avoid ones that will affect their intended style of play or character type, which says to me that they aren't giving out too many points (in general).

What does irk me is players trying to avoid having to suffer the penalties the disads apply, and not just by not playing them (and thus potentially incurring losses of XP), but by trying to avoid situations where they might apply, even when it makes sense to not avoid those situations. Getting the incentives in play when they come up (as FATE and some other game do) would seem to help avoid this, but it does require tracking such stuff and can result in things going to the extreme, with players trying to make their disad apply in any and all situations (ideally just enough to get the XP, not enough to be a real problem).

Mind you, the above is really just more of the players possibly trying to play the GM, and if they're the types to do that, they'll probably do it no matter what, so I suppose in the end all these systems utility depends on the group and the game contract.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by martinl

Almost everyone buys disads up to the limit.

Or at least, close to it. Another contributing factor is that it's easy to start out meaning to have less disadvantages, and then feel tempted to take more so as to fit something into the character.

For me, designing a character's personality involves some dialogue with the disadvantage system, trying to describe the character without crippling them in play. I try to take "disadvantages I can live with" which doesn't merely mean ones that won't come up often, although I do try to avoid ones that will come up all the time. That's spotlight stealing and annoying for other players. It also includes an element of "No, I can't/won't do that, but why would I want to?/I'm happy enough about that."

For the character I most recently started playing, I can remember some of the thinking. He's a boatman in an urban fantasy noir version of 1930s New York, and the campaign started with a heist, which he ended up planning, being the only character with any leadership training, from a period in the Navy. He has:

• Greed (12 or less) [-15]. This is why he gets involved with crime.
• Social Stigma (Criminal Record) [-5] . . . with unfortunate results. He's not a face-man, he does transport and organisation.
• Sense of Duty (Partners in crime) (Small Group) [-5] to give him some motive to stick with the party, and behave reasonably towards them.
• Code of Honor (Pirate's) [-5] Likewise, but don't expect it to extend too far. That got his personality straight, but I needed some more points:
• Addiction (Pipe-smoker) (Cheap) (Highly addictive; Legal) [-5] Very thirties, fairly acceptable in the society, but a problem if we get cut off from it, by being dumped into the land of the Fae, or something like that.
• Skinny [-5] Characterisation, a problem if we get into fist-fights, but we do have a specialist for that.
• Hidebound [-5] Doesn't like totally new ideas, and doesn't come up with them. A small-c conservative, in a trade that doesn't change much. The plans he makes are simple, but that's a good idea when PCs are executing them.
• Hard of Hearing [-10] Too much time around big guns in the Navy, and didn't like wearing hearing protection.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Hard of Hearing [-10] Too much time around big guns in the Navy, and didn't like wearing hearing protection.

From the photos from that time and earlier, I'm not sure that navies routinely used hearing protection past 'fingers in ears' for smaller guns and 'don't be on deck' for large guns.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by martinl

1. Focus - folks often assign disads to areas that are not the focus of their character, and use the points they gain to be better at that focus. The stereotypical combat munchkin with -8 to reactions is the canonical example, but this is just generally common in many PC concepts. It is also the reason disad limits are so common - without them that PC would have -25 reactions but be able to kill everyone who looked at her funny because of it.

I have never seen this done, or even attempted. I have seen some other munchkinisms, however, but they never lasted in play as almost all munchkinisms have at least one glaring and exploitable weakness.

Originally Posted by martinl

1.a. Externalities - one of the worst variants of this is disads that hurt the group, not the PC. "Enemy, very powerful, all the time," is the 4e example now that Jinxed has been mercy killed. I generally try to prevent this from happening, since the other players usually find it obnoxious, but it may be hard to spot before it happens. Mr. -8 reactions often thinks it is his duty to do all the talking because he is the strongest fighter, for some reason.

Also not seen this done ever. I have seen an enemy that everyone had, though.

But I don't run with or run munchkins. They get weeded out one way or another.

Originally Posted by martinl

2. Definition (Character) - Some character concepts call for stuff that is an obvious weakness. A one eyed pirate, an honorable knight, or a scatterbrained wizard are all fun stereotypes, and disadvantages give your PC a little game mechanical cookie for playing a PC with a weakness.

3. Definition (Campaign) - Disads are also a tool that can be used to enforce campaign themes or rules. Inter PC loyalty, or duty to a specific NPC, or even "You are all guttersnipes with Status -2, Youth, and Wealth -2" are all things that give an in game reward for following the game guidelines.

These are normal and unexeptional uses.

Overall, I've not really had any problems over my time as a GM with RAW. But I suggest alternatives or--very seldom--say 'no' to unplayable disad comboes in character generation. And I do use them when making session notes, so they get poked and used.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Kax

Also not seen this done ever. I have seen an enemy that everyone had, though.

But I don't run with or run munchkins. They get weeded out one way or another.

With enemies that one CP has, it's not about mucnkinism. The problem is that the enemy goes after the PCs that's bought them, and the rest of the party closes ranks around that PC, usually without even needing to have bought Codes of Honour of Senses of Duty that require it, because most groups' social contracts include them as an unspoken assumption. Having closed ranks and fought off the enemy, they have now made an enemy of that enemy too, and as it's 'in play' they get no points for having done so. Nobody need have ill or even slightly munchkinny intentions for this to occur.

[AlexanderHowl]

Well, Enemies can go after a specific target and avoid other targets (or a group of PCs can share the same enemy)

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Well, Enemies can go after a specific target and avoid other targets (or a group of PCs can share the same enemy)

"My beef isn't with you lot. This only needs to be between him and me." If the enemy is honorable, he might even admire (and be willing to forgive) their misguided loyalty.

If they choose to stick with the PC when his enemy shows up, that's on them. I personally do not enforce party cohesion. I certainly favor it - but I once ordered a missile strike against a fellow PC.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Dalin

With that said, I find Trickster to be fairly annoying...

Agreed, but more because I find it becomes the 'excuse' for poor behavior on a Player's part.

Similarly, in a zoomed in dungeon, it might take multiple play sessions for a day to pass. I prefer things that are linked to session time: once per session, or something like that. Then it can be inserted more organically.

Yeah, if I allowed it, I'd probably swap it to "per session".

Originally Posted by Rupert

With enemies that one CP has, it's not about mucnkinism. The problem is that the enemy goes after the PCs that's bought them, and the rest of the party closes ranks around that PC...

Y'all realize that Enemies need not be the type to attack a PC directly yeah? They can go after the PC in different ways, socially, legally, hiring goons, etc...