Obsessions motivating "all actions"

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

On the contrary, it requires every action which would further the goal.

No it doesn't. As worded, all it does is permit every action which would further the goal.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

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.

Vows already exists as an alternative to Obsession. I have seen Obsessed characters. Goblin Slayer is an Obsessed character. I have played an Obsessed character. Her Obsession was "screwing over the nobility". She evaluated every choice she made with regard to "Could this somehow lead to a chance to betray or kill a noble?" She fell in love with a man, but she betrayed him because that gave her a chance to screw over a noble.

[RyanW]

I know this doesn't match the text, but I think it would play better to change Obsession into something like an extreme but narrow Impulsiveness. When faced with an opportunity to advance your goal, you would have to make a self-control roll to avoid dropping everything and pursuing it, or to rationally weigh the consequences. Along with a "always on the lookout for opportunities" and "will not do anything that seriously hurts my chances to succeed".

But until you get word that the six-fingered man is in Florin, your obsession mostly takes the form of staying prepared to act, asking strangers awkward questions about their hands, and not going so far away that such news would never reach you

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Vows already exists as an alternative to Obsession. I have seen Obsessed characters. Goblin Slayer is an Obsessed character.

But Goblin Slayer doesn't justify everything he does as furthering his goal of killing goblins. He purposefully uses cheap gear - even overpays for rush repair jobs when he could use the same money to buy something better - to make certain that if he dies, his death doesn't make goblins stronger. When he finds out that goblins are going to attack the farm in short order, he initially plans to simply fight them - but when Cowgirl refuses to evacuate, he goes to the Adventurer's Guild for help. And when he is asked if the reward he offered - "Everything I have" - included his life, he states it does not - not because dying would stop him from killing more goblins (as GURPS Obsession would require him to justify it as), but because he didn't want to make Cowgirl sad. He goes on "dates" with Cowgirl and Guild Girl during the festival, despite this not advancing his goals at all, and also participates in festival games, giving the rewards to others simply as a kind gesture. When rookie adventurers come to him for advise on fighting giant rats and giant cockroaches, he readily gives it honestly (again, despite his own goal of wiping out goblins being completely unaided by doing so).

Certainly, Goblin Slayer is obsessed with killing goblins, but despite the fact he is a severely emotionally-damaged individual, he doesn't actually match the fluff description from Characters. The definition it sounds like DFRPG uses is a better fit, although even then there are things GS wouldn't do in the pursuit of killing goblins (such as sacrificing teammates). Honestly, GS would probably be more appropriately built with Higher Purpose (Slay Goblins), which has a built-in requirement that the character obsessively pursue their purpose (although honestly, given what I've seen of his performance against non-goblins, Higher Purpose arguably isn't appropriate, as he seems just as effective against other threats).

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Certainly, Goblin Slayer is obsessed with killing goblins, but despite the fact he is a severely emotionally-damaged individual, he doesn't actually match the fluff description from Characters.

I don't know the character. If we were to suppose that he has Obsession, what do you think his self-control number would be? Enough to "occasionally" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals? Enough to "almost always" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals? Only enough to "rarely" be able to do things that don't further his Obsession's goals?

And what exactly is his Obsession? Is it "kill all goblins"? Or is it "stop the goblin threat," and killing them is just one good way of achieving that goal, one which would allow him to justify actions with "so that my death doesn't make them stronger"?

These are all parameters of the disadvantage that have to be specified when taking it. When adapting the disadvantage to an existing character, you have to make sure you define the parameters correctly.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

... 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?

It should say, "you may take no actions that would hinder your pursuit of the goal, unless you first pass a self-control roll".

[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).