One possible final comment on disadvantages in my game.
Points Don't Set Intensity
Sometimes players will say, basically, "This is only a -5 point disadvantage, it shouldn't do that much to me."
In GURPS in general and in my games, particularly, this is not true.
The point value of the disadvantage is meant to tell you how much the game assumes it'll restrict you to have this disadvantage. In my opinion it's rating how much your disadvantage cuts down your options and comes with pre-existing logical consequences.
The rules basically say, Greedy (12) is -15 because it's likely to cause you serious problems, influence a lot of your decisions, and restrict your options a lot. Overconfidence (12) is -5 because, well, not as much. You just do the things you'd probably do anyway in an adventure game but overrate your ability to do those things. Sense of Duty (Close Friends and Companions) is -5 because you're probably going to do that anyway from purely pragmatic and social meta-game considerations. But you do get some points back because sometimes "Run away, no sense in us both dying" is a sensible decision for both of you but your disad says, "Stay here and fight at his side." This is why Sense of Duty (Nation) is worth more and Sense of Duty (All Living Things) even more than that - it just comes up more often, it's not that one comes up more intensely than the lower-point versions.
So as you put them down to get your quota of disadvantages, they're worth varying amounts.
Once they hit your sheet, they're equally weighted (subject to Self-Control rolls and interactions and actual play, of course.)
So you can't sit down and say, "I'm three times as Greedy as I am Overconfident, because one is -15 and one is -5." Nor can you say, "Overconfidence shouldn't make me do really risky things, because it's only -5 points, but Greedy is really nasty because it's -15." It's a false connection.
While you can look at the points given back for the disadvantage to assess how bad it is, you can't use that point value to determine its relative strength against other disadvantages.
How do you handle conflicts between disads?
ReplyDeleteCase by case, with a heavy lean on Self Control rolls. I can't really be more specific than that because that's the entire approach. Sometimes they both come up, and you're conflicted and don't accomplish that much. Sometimes one wins out - and that may cause you to want to upgrade or downgrade your disadvantages per the previous post. It really all depends on the combo and the circumstances and the player and the rolls.
DeleteIt's more like "Greedy pushes me to do stuff I normally wouldn't somewhere around either three times more often than overconfidence, or three time riskier, or three times more annoying, or some combination of them, generally speaking, as a ballpark figure, because it's worth three times the points. Kinda."
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if I let players make their characters, I'll come down heavier on someone who forgets about a -30 thing than a -5.
I try to avoid doing that, to avoid setting that false comparison (forget -30, it's bad, forget -5, it's okay, because -30>-5) from my side.
Delete"While you can look at the points given back for the disadvantage to assess how bad it is, you can't use that point value to determine its relative strength against other disadvantages."
ReplyDeleteEh? Of course you can. Overconfidence (-5) should not be as disruptive to the group's plans and activities as Greedy (-15). That's why the PC got 10 more points for Greedy, //it's 10 more points worth of disruptive!//
Or to use a more literal comparison, Overconfidence (-5) should not be as disruptive to a Character as Megalomania (-10).
Now I get you are trying to limit the number of 5 point Disads that show up on PCs, but I think you're over-correcting a bit harshly.
"Now I get you are trying to limit the number of 5 point Disads that show up on PCs, but I think you're over-correcting a bit harshly."
DeleteI'm not trying to limit the number of 5 point disadvantages. I'm trying to limit people using the point value to back-determine the relative strength of their disadvantages. Someone with Overconfidence [-5] is less put out by being overconfident than someone with Megalomania [-10] is put out by being a megalomaniac, that's why the point values are different. But that doesn't mean one is twice as intense as the other, one is twice as meaningful to the PC as the other, or otherwise provides a useful comparison of how strongly overconfident vs. how strongly megalomaniacal the PC is.
Or to use my example from above again, Greedy (12) vs. Overconfidence (12) - you're just as greedy as you overconfident, it's just one gets you more points. Comparing the points is useless because it's not actually telling you what you think it's telling you. Compare the effects, not the price.
"But that doesn't mean one is twice as intense as the other.."
DeleteAh, I see what you're saying. I still to an extent disagree... Greedy should have a greater ingame effect than Overconfidence, it is more points after all (and yes, socially ingame it will cause more issues for PC than Overconfidence does).
As for Meglomania, I think it's deliberately /underpriced/ to keep PCs from taking it (it's ingame disruption should be greater than Greedy for instance) and to stop it from just being "the only disad the GM gives the Villian".
"Comparing the points is useless because it's not actually telling you what you think it's telling you. Compare the effects, not the price."
And here we disagree strongly. Comparing the points still has utility. If the GM is demanding that Overconfidence is as disruptive to my Character's life as Greedy, I'm gonna leave that game. I didn't take Overconfidence to have another 15 points worth of PC planning and acting disruption, I took Overconfidence to make things slightly difficult sometimes (and because that's one of the ways I tend to play characters, so it's an easy glove to slip on).
I get you're saying "look at the effects", and based solely on natural in game effects Overconfidence isn't as burdensome as Greedy... but I've had GMs who tried to have a "Disad triggering thing" for every character in every scene. That's where the points need to be looked at. If you're having Overconfidence "trigger" every scene (which it should) and it's making life just as rough for as Greedy is for another PC (which it shouldn't)... why did the Overconfident PC only get back 5 points?
That's where I'm coming from.
Where I'm coming from is that if points matter for intensity of the disad, then Overconfidence (6) [-10] isn't as strong as Greedy (12) [-15] even on the same person.
DeleteThe points, as I see it, are set based on what effect it has, and how burdensome that effect is. A low point value doesn't mean it's a weak effect or that it's not really meant to restrict you, just that the effect and restriction isn't burdensome enough to warrant extra points.
Probably the perfect example is having two enemies, both of whom loathe you - but one is 200 points and one 500. One is worth more, simply because the consequences are harsher when then come up.
Basically, if someone sits at my table and says, "Overconfidence shouldn't make me take risks like that, it's only -5" or "Sense of Duty -5 shouldn't mean I actually risk my life for this companion of mine if it's tactically foolish" or "Greed is -15, I must mug little kids for their change because -15 is a lot of points!" they're going have trouble roleplaying with me as the GM.
"Where I'm coming from is that if points matter for intensity of the disad, then Overconfidence (6) [-10] isn't as strong as Greedy (12) [-15] even on the same person."
DeleteIf Overconfidence (6) [-10] was meant to be as burdensome as Greedy (12) [-15], then shouldn't they be the same points?
"The points, as I see it, are set based on what effect it has, and how burdensome that effect is. A low point value doesn't mean it's a weak effect or that it's not really meant to restrict you, just that the effect and restriction isn't burdensome enough to warrant extra points."
On this we absolutely agree.
"Basically, if someone sits at my table and says, "Overconfidence shouldn't make me take risks like that, it's only -5" or "Sense of Duty -5 shouldn't mean I actually risk my life for this companion of mine if it's tactically foolish" or "Greed is -15, I must mug little kids for their change because -15 is a lot of points!" they're going have trouble roleplaying with me as the GM. "
All that is fine too. My only issue is completely disregarding the point value when those making judgement calls, or rather advocating it.
"If Overconfidence (6) [-10] was meant to be as burdensome as Greedy (12) [-15], then shouldn't they be the same points?"
DeleteYes, but they aren't. What Overconfidence makes you do isn't as much of a disadvantage to you as what Greed makes you do. Greed limits you more when it comes up, so it's worth more points. This is why Sense of Duty (Close Friends and Companions) is -5. It's not really terribly limiting to stand by your friends in a cooperative fantasy RPG, regardless of how often that comes up.
"What Overconfidence makes you do isn't as much of a disadvantage to you as what Greed makes you do."
DeleteI see where your argument is coming fromnow. You're saying the obvious "Overcinfidence should come up every single time the Character has a chance to be Overconfident" not "1/3 of the time becuase it's 1/3 of the points of Greed".
I agree with all that. My argument is born from the place of "ignoring the point cost". Greed [15] is three times the value of Overconfidence [5], it should be 3 times as burdensome (even if it's in the form of the Character being socially ostracixed for his Greediness, or other people trying to take advantage of him as "he's got all the moneys", or PCs pushback, or something). That last bit is a tricky balance.
My argument also stems from being in games with people who blow those smaller 5 point disads up into game halting issues. The PC who refuses to do things that aren't "his way" because he's Stubborn [5], etc. Those are also places where saying "Dude, it's a 5 point disad, stop treating it like it's Terminal Illness [100]" is useful.
"I see where your argument is coming fromnow. You're saying the obvious "Overcinfidence should come up every single time the Character has a chance to be Overconfident" not "1/3 of the time becuase it's 1/3 of the points of Greed"."
DeleteNot really. Frequency is not the issue. It's what the disadvantage makes you do - the effect on your character. Overconfidence doesn't suck as bad to have as Greed can.
And I specifically disagree on this, too:
" Those are also places where saying "Dude, it's a 5 point disad, stop treating it like it's Terminal Illness [100]" is useful."
That line of thinking is what I'm trying to avoid. I don't want that equivalency made even in that fashion. They both do what they do, and one might be worse to have but one isn't a stronger part of your character's personality or overwhelms the other based on points. The points are meta; the effects are in-game.
Although I've never done it explicitly myself, I've always been tempted to use the "No points for disads in chargen, points for disads in play" variant I saw on the boards a while back. Disads are fun when they crop up, so I like the idea of encouraging that rather than point shaving.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason I haven't used it is because I can't see a way to implement it that doesn't encourage checkbox thinking.
I love that idea... but ... yeah. I hear it works great for some people, but I've heard exactly that problem has arisen in play. Specific people mugging the spotlight with their disads for more exps. It would be a fine balance.
DeleteIt might work best to run it like FATE runs Aspects... but as I've yet to manage to get into a good long game of FATE to see how they work in play, I'm hesitant to try it at my table.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete