For DF Felltower, when a magic item gives or has a disadvantage, the PC that wield it/owns it suffers from the disadvantage but their point total is not decreased.
For example, Percy is 318 points and carries Agar's Wand, which is a Weirdness Magnet. Percy suffers the effects of the disadvantage, but does not drop to 303 points in value.
This is done so that PCs do not have a loot requirement (see DF21) that is below a given threshold thanks to have a magic item that has disadvantages. It's purely disadvantageous, and carries no additional benefits.
FWIW, this also applies to disadvantages earned/gained in play that take you below -55 points. The cap of effective point reduction for thresholds is -55, regardless of how or why the additional disadvantages were gained.
Showing posts with label disadvantages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disadvantages. Show all posts
Monday, March 31, 2025
Wednesday, June 7, 2023
Should I take Odious Personal Habit or Social Stigma?
I'm finalizing a slightly revised version of Handsome, the half-orc* scout.
Right now, he has the alarmingly standard Odious Personal Habit (Dirty Bushwhacker) disad, for -5 points.
Do I keep that? It's on-template and nice for a scout.
Or do I go where I'm leaning, and get Social Stigma (Criminal) instead?
Right now, with just Social Stigma (Savage), he's stopped from entering town on a 6- and has -2/-4 to negotiation rolls (more with Unattractive!) Do I just push that to -3/-4? Well, more with his appearance?
Or do I go with a -2 to in-town reaction rolls and most in-town rolls?
The second is demonstrably worse. But makes sense given that he's a greedy jerkoff with a bow. It won't hurt him in the dungeon but will make his social life in town even worse.
Decisions, decisions!
* Which parent was which? Both were half-orcs.
Right now, he has the alarmingly standard Odious Personal Habit (Dirty Bushwhacker) disad, for -5 points.
Do I keep that? It's on-template and nice for a scout.
Or do I go where I'm leaning, and get Social Stigma (Criminal) instead?
Right now, with just Social Stigma (Savage), he's stopped from entering town on a 6- and has -2/-4 to negotiation rolls (more with Unattractive!) Do I just push that to -3/-4? Well, more with his appearance?
Or do I go with a -2 to in-town reaction rolls and most in-town rolls?
The second is demonstrably worse. But makes sense given that he's a greedy jerkoff with a bow. It won't hurt him in the dungeon but will make his social life in town even worse.
Decisions, decisions!
* Which parent was which? Both were half-orcs.
Wednesday, September 7, 2022
Felltower & Vow of Chastity
One of my players sent me a cleric, and it has Vow (Chastity) [-5].
I think in Felltower this is a quirk-level Vow. No less serious, but it just doesn't limit your character much. It's very rare that romantic involvement - or sexual involvement - comes up in a game-affecting way.
So I have rule it's a Quirk, and -1 points. I think the player has some other options which will actually be worth the -5 points, and I won't grumble over a disadvantage that doesn't actually limit the PC's actions or choices or results.
I think in Felltower this is a quirk-level Vow. No less serious, but it just doesn't limit your character much. It's very rare that romantic involvement - or sexual involvement - comes up in a game-affecting way.
So I have rule it's a Quirk, and -1 points. I think the player has some other options which will actually be worth the -5 points, and I won't grumble over a disadvantage that doesn't actually limit the PC's actions or choices or results.
Sunday, December 5, 2021
Disadvantage review for Felltower PCs
It was time this week for a good look at the PCs in the campaign to see who needs adjustment.
Looking at every else's disadvantages, they largely play them.
Gerry is a clueless, zombie-friendly team player.
Crogar is a cautious and methodical swamp-hater.
Galen is a bloodthirsty loner who hates city folk, doesn't own much, and doesn't care much except to stick by his teammates.
Wyatt is company-loving, arrogant, overconfident guy who won't turn down a fight, even when it's a bad idea.
Bruce is a hair-trigger tempered fist-happy savage with no regard for things like "common decency" or "clothing."
Aldwyn needed a little tweaking, though. His disadvantages had him as having Code of Honor (Chivalry) and being an upright, honorable guy. His actual play has him being an upright teammate but a ruthless executioner who'll take your head while using whatever unfair advantages he can get.
So Code of Honor (Chivalry) had to go. After a short discussion, Code of Honor (Soldier's) plus Bloodlust (15) seemed to way to go, instead. He's actually a little more bloodthirsty than that, but that's fine - he can control it when he chooses to pretty easily. He, like Galen, just probably won't choose to control it very often at all.
Periodically I like to look at the characters like this. Their disadvantages should reflect how they're played . . . and I generally prefer to modify the disads instead of modify play, within reason. You should read someone's sheet, quirks and all, and say, "Oh my, yes" not "I didn't know you had . . . "
I also need to spend some points on Varmus - he had 10 to spend. I'm currently reveiwing what he has vs. what his full-on Wizard template needs . . . and I'm aiming to bring him in line with that. A pure gamist perspective would be to get Magery 6 before anything else and then up Energy Reserve. That would make him the most useful to the other PCs. But would it make Varmus-as-Varmus the best wizard he could be, long term? Maybe not . . . and when Aldwyn hits 500 would it be nice if Varmus looked a lot like a 250-point wizard? I think yes. So I'm still deciding the best route to getting close to there.
And look for a post later this week - possibly Thursday or Sunday - with a Felltower-specific discussion of what the Code of Honor (Soldier's) means in play.
Looking at every else's disadvantages, they largely play them.
Gerry is a clueless, zombie-friendly team player.
Crogar is a cautious and methodical swamp-hater.
Galen is a bloodthirsty loner who hates city folk, doesn't own much, and doesn't care much except to stick by his teammates.
Wyatt is company-loving, arrogant, overconfident guy who won't turn down a fight, even when it's a bad idea.
Bruce is a hair-trigger tempered fist-happy savage with no regard for things like "common decency" or "clothing."
Aldwyn needed a little tweaking, though. His disadvantages had him as having Code of Honor (Chivalry) and being an upright, honorable guy. His actual play has him being an upright teammate but a ruthless executioner who'll take your head while using whatever unfair advantages he can get.
So Code of Honor (Chivalry) had to go. After a short discussion, Code of Honor (Soldier's) plus Bloodlust (15) seemed to way to go, instead. He's actually a little more bloodthirsty than that, but that's fine - he can control it when he chooses to pretty easily. He, like Galen, just probably won't choose to control it very often at all.
Periodically I like to look at the characters like this. Their disadvantages should reflect how they're played . . . and I generally prefer to modify the disads instead of modify play, within reason. You should read someone's sheet, quirks and all, and say, "Oh my, yes" not "I didn't know you had . . . "
I also need to spend some points on Varmus - he had 10 to spend. I'm currently reveiwing what he has vs. what his full-on Wizard template needs . . . and I'm aiming to bring him in line with that. A pure gamist perspective would be to get Magery 6 before anything else and then up Energy Reserve. That would make him the most useful to the other PCs. But would it make Varmus-as-Varmus the best wizard he could be, long term? Maybe not . . . and when Aldwyn hits 500 would it be nice if Varmus looked a lot like a 250-point wizard? I think yes. So I'm still deciding the best route to getting close to there.
And look for a post later this week - possibly Thursday or Sunday - with a Felltower-specific discussion of what the Code of Honor (Soldier's) means in play.
Monday, April 26, 2021
Changing a Vow (Part I)
What does it take to remove a Vow?
Generally in my DF Felltower campaign, I allow people to change their quirks and disadvantages around to suit how the character actually plays at the table.
Generally.
I make a few exceptions. You can't just willy-nilly remove or swap out a Sense of Duty, any kind of externally-imposed or template-imposed disadvantage, or a physical disadvantage.
I prefer people make the change smooth - better your temper improve and then go away, or your greed get more controlled and eventually become a quirk. Or expand out - your tight-fisted nature may eventually become Miserliness.
Vows fit into a different category than the behavioral traits. You've sworn an oath. In Felltower, this is presumably before the Good God.* If not the Good God, before some other earthly or heavenly or diabolic entity. If it's another earthly entity for a non-evil person, it's likely that the Good God was involved or some other similar power (Nature, say.)
If you swear an oath to never used edged weapons, or never refuse a challenge to combat, or to own no more than can be carried . . . and then you decide, geez, I'm not really feeling it anymore, then what?
You can't really just say your paper man grew out of that. It's a proper oath - a contract between you and (in all likelihood) your god. Even if you don't like it, it's a contract that you must hold up.**
The question I'm stuck on is, how would you end a Vow?
What if you, the player, or the paper man itself, has some reason to think that Vow isn't a good representation of the character/a good oath to keep? What is the in-game method that makes sense without become an oathbreaker? And how is such a path meaningful in a megadungeon/delves-only adventuring approach?
I'm thinking about that. I haven't - yet - hit on something I find satisfactory. So I decided I'd put it up here and see what suggestions I get. I don't know if I'll read one that I like, but it's worth asking as the commenters here often have a very different angle on gaming than I do.
* Who, keep in mind, isn't an abstract concept you believe in, but a real being capable of granting miraculous abilities and smiting foes, albeit largely through other angencies.
** I've had it argued that Sense of Duty, Vow, etc. aren't suicide pacts, but in some cases they might amount to one. If you've sworn an oath not to use weapons and die in combat when a weapon could have saved you . . . or accept a challenge to fight against a foe you can't beat (knowingly or unknowingly) . . . or swear an oath to silence and must either call for help or fight alone . . . you can get killed. Your Vow in no way comes with an "unless I'd die" escape clause. It's what makes it a real disadvantage and not a Quirk. "Use no edged weapons unless I have to" or "Silence except if I really need to say something" or "Never refuse a challenge to combat that I think I can win" are probably Quirks at best. The first two might be - the third is just about every delver, ever, and restricts no one from anything. It's not even usual enough to be remarkable.
Generally in my DF Felltower campaign, I allow people to change their quirks and disadvantages around to suit how the character actually plays at the table.
Generally.
I make a few exceptions. You can't just willy-nilly remove or swap out a Sense of Duty, any kind of externally-imposed or template-imposed disadvantage, or a physical disadvantage.
I prefer people make the change smooth - better your temper improve and then go away, or your greed get more controlled and eventually become a quirk. Or expand out - your tight-fisted nature may eventually become Miserliness.
Vows fit into a different category than the behavioral traits. You've sworn an oath. In Felltower, this is presumably before the Good God.* If not the Good God, before some other earthly or heavenly or diabolic entity. If it's another earthly entity for a non-evil person, it's likely that the Good God was involved or some other similar power (Nature, say.)
If you swear an oath to never used edged weapons, or never refuse a challenge to combat, or to own no more than can be carried . . . and then you decide, geez, I'm not really feeling it anymore, then what?
You can't really just say your paper man grew out of that. It's a proper oath - a contract between you and (in all likelihood) your god. Even if you don't like it, it's a contract that you must hold up.**
The question I'm stuck on is, how would you end a Vow?
What if you, the player, or the paper man itself, has some reason to think that Vow isn't a good representation of the character/a good oath to keep? What is the in-game method that makes sense without become an oathbreaker? And how is such a path meaningful in a megadungeon/delves-only adventuring approach?
I'm thinking about that. I haven't - yet - hit on something I find satisfactory. So I decided I'd put it up here and see what suggestions I get. I don't know if I'll read one that I like, but it's worth asking as the commenters here often have a very different angle on gaming than I do.
* Who, keep in mind, isn't an abstract concept you believe in, but a real being capable of granting miraculous abilities and smiting foes, albeit largely through other angencies.
** I've had it argued that Sense of Duty, Vow, etc. aren't suicide pacts, but in some cases they might amount to one. If you've sworn an oath not to use weapons and die in combat when a weapon could have saved you . . . or accept a challenge to fight against a foe you can't beat (knowingly or unknowingly) . . . or swear an oath to silence and must either call for help or fight alone . . . you can get killed. Your Vow in no way comes with an "unless I'd die" escape clause. It's what makes it a real disadvantage and not a Quirk. "Use no edged weapons unless I have to" or "Silence except if I really need to say something" or "Never refuse a challenge to combat that I think I can win" are probably Quirks at best. The first two might be - the third is just about every delver, ever, and restricts no one from anything. It's not even usual enough to be remarkable.
Thursday, April 15, 2021
Vow: Never refuse a one-on-one challenge to combat
I've been having a discussion by email with one of my players about disadvantages. I thought elements of that were worth sharing and preserving on the blog.
In DF Felltower, some disadvantages warrant special treatment because they're especially disadvantageous, or because they call up circumstances that just don't occur often.
Here is how I priced one:
Vow: Never refuse a one-on-one challenge to combat
Much like the -10 point version, you've sworn to never turn down a challenge to combat - but only a one-on-one fight. In DF Felltower, this is a Quirk.
It's exceedingly rare for a PC to be challenged to a specifically one-on-one combat. It's happened twice that I can recall.
The circumstances are very unusual. You'd need a foe that wants to fight a specific PC. The that foe would need to make some kind of effectively communicated challenge that the PC could understand. Then, the NPC would need to face the PC one-on-one. It's not clear who determines what "counts." Presumably the Vower. The vower can't say no, so it's tough if the NPC is, say, the Lord of Spite. It's hard to rule on if the foe is a dragon who roars out a challenge at the PCs in general or the PC in specific - was that a challenge to a duel, exactly, or just a general roar?
Also this disadvantage also says nothing about help. The PC can be buffed and enchanced by friends. Can the NPC? Does it still "count" as one-on-one if the enemy has magic put on him? What if he puts it on himself, still fair? What if the PC accepts the challenge, but then the PC's friends jump in? If the PC refuses help, that's nice, but it's not really that restrictive unless he's required to give up existing advantage as well as turn down potential help.
So the circumstances come up rarely. The vow is minimally restrictive even when they do come up. The vow doesn't really hinder the PC in any way except when it turns out a really nasty foe makes a very clear challenge to fight.
Hence, this is a quirk. It'll come up - even quirks can have very steep game effects - but rarely. When it does, it won't really restrict the PC's actions overly.
In a different game - perhaps a Musketeers game inspired by Alexander Dumas - this could be -5. In a megadungeon with group-on-group fights with magic around, it's a quirk.
In DF Felltower, some disadvantages warrant special treatment because they're especially disadvantageous, or because they call up circumstances that just don't occur often.
Here is how I priced one:
Vow: Never refuse a one-on-one challenge to combat
Much like the -10 point version, you've sworn to never turn down a challenge to combat - but only a one-on-one fight. In DF Felltower, this is a Quirk.
It's exceedingly rare for a PC to be challenged to a specifically one-on-one combat. It's happened twice that I can recall.
The circumstances are very unusual. You'd need a foe that wants to fight a specific PC. The that foe would need to make some kind of effectively communicated challenge that the PC could understand. Then, the NPC would need to face the PC one-on-one. It's not clear who determines what "counts." Presumably the Vower. The vower can't say no, so it's tough if the NPC is, say, the Lord of Spite. It's hard to rule on if the foe is a dragon who roars out a challenge at the PCs in general or the PC in specific - was that a challenge to a duel, exactly, or just a general roar?
Also this disadvantage also says nothing about help. The PC can be buffed and enchanced by friends. Can the NPC? Does it still "count" as one-on-one if the enemy has magic put on him? What if he puts it on himself, still fair? What if the PC accepts the challenge, but then the PC's friends jump in? If the PC refuses help, that's nice, but it's not really that restrictive unless he's required to give up existing advantage as well as turn down potential help.
So the circumstances come up rarely. The vow is minimally restrictive even when they do come up. The vow doesn't really hinder the PC in any way except when it turns out a really nasty foe makes a very clear challenge to fight.
Hence, this is a quirk. It'll come up - even quirks can have very steep game effects - but rarely. When it does, it won't really restrict the PC's actions overly.
In a different game - perhaps a Musketeers game inspired by Alexander Dumas - this could be -5. In a megadungeon with group-on-group fights with magic around, it's a quirk.
Saturday, March 6, 2021
Overpriced Disadvantages in DF: Lecherousness
I've blogged before about Underpriced GURPS Disadvantages.
Here is one that I think needs a little worsening to bring up the point value.
Lecherousness: -15 points
I think I good start on this one is to use Charles Saeger's rule from here:
Getting Your Points Worth
Plus:
You're easily distracted by any potential romantic partner. You are at a -2 to attack and -1 to defend against foes of the opposite sex that display any attractive physical features of the sex that you prefer. This is broad - topless harpies? -2. Iron golems shaped like a Greek Adonis? -2. A succubus? -2. And so on.
I think with that addition and the risk of social disease, you're likely to really live up to the -15 point value in a dungeon-based game.
Here is one that I think needs a little worsening to bring up the point value.
Lecherousness: -15 points
I think I good start on this one is to use Charles Saeger's rule from here:
Getting Your Points Worth
Plus:
You're easily distracted by any potential romantic partner. You are at a -2 to attack and -1 to defend against foes of the opposite sex that display any attractive physical features of the sex that you prefer. This is broad - topless harpies? -2. Iron golems shaped like a Greek Adonis? -2. A succubus? -2. And so on.
I think with that addition and the risk of social disease, you're likely to really live up to the -15 point value in a dungeon-based game.
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Weird Wizards, again
I seem to have written two different approaches to the same idea - enforced weirdness for wizards in GURPS.
Required Weirdness for Wizards (May 2018)
Weird Wizards (April 2020)
Looking at my current campaign, I do a lot more of the first approach than the second.
Looking at those posts, I really like the direct tie to Magery as it's a very simple approach:
The modified approach I think I'd like is this:
Magery 1: -1 point
Magery 2: -5 points
Magery 3: -10 points
Magery 4: -15 points
Magery 5: -25 points
Magery 6: -35 points
Every 10 points in Energy Reserve, Mana Enhancer, Improved Magic Resistance, Familiar (or other supernatural ally), or Wild Magic is another -1 points in disadvantages and quirks of a "weird" nature.
I think that's a balanced approach. Your Magery 6, Energy Reserve 10, Wild Magic 1 wizard would have -40 of his -55 points in disadvantages in "weird" things. The list from the posts above would be a useful one, plus any other player and GM-agreed disads.
I'm not sure if I'll enforce this in Felltower on PCs . . . but I may use this as a guideline when making NPC wizards. I'll let PC wizards, if they want, be "so normal it's weird." I bet most of them won't.
Required Weirdness for Wizards (May 2018)
Weird Wizards (April 2020)
Looking at my current campaign, I do a lot more of the first approach than the second.
Looking at those posts, I really like the direct tie to Magery as it's a very simple approach:
The modified approach I think I'd like is this:
Magery 1: -1 point
Magery 2: -5 points
Magery 3: -10 points
Magery 4: -15 points
Magery 5: -25 points
Magery 6: -35 points
Every 10 points in Energy Reserve, Mana Enhancer, Improved Magic Resistance, Familiar (or other supernatural ally), or Wild Magic is another -1 points in disadvantages and quirks of a "weird" nature.
I think that's a balanced approach. Your Magery 6, Energy Reserve 10, Wild Magic 1 wizard would have -40 of his -55 points in disadvantages in "weird" things. The list from the posts above would be a useful one, plus any other player and GM-agreed disads.
I'm not sure if I'll enforce this in Felltower on PCs . . . but I may use this as a guideline when making NPC wizards. I'll let PC wizards, if they want, be "so normal it's weird." I bet most of them won't.
Thursday, September 3, 2020
Monstrous Traits
Continuing the thoughts from my last Felltower post:
What traits in GURPS are generally those that would mark a being as generally hostile?
This is largely from a fantasy or space opera perspective, and includes some things from GURPS Dungeon Fantasy . . . but much it applies in general. If you have an addiction to murder and a sadistic streak, you're probably a monster in any game.
Unpleasant Traits
These traits are ones that make it more difficult to get along with a given being. They're not pleasant, but not necessarily monster-like or capital-E evil.
Good examples of these are Bully, Bloodlust, Callous, Intolerance, Sadism - these all make it more likely than not you'll earn a hostile reaction eventually.
Paranoia and Megalomania - eventually these will put you at odds with others, either through your fear of them or your assumption of superiority over them and your attempts to asset it.
Bad Temper, Berserk*, Compulsive Behavior (Fighting) - these all make it likely you'll eventually provoke a response by your actions - you'll take direct action that leads to violence, resort to violence, or resort to some kind of insult and end up fighting.
Social Stigma (Outlaw), Social Stigma (Excommunicated) - these classify you as an "other" due to legal or religious reasons. You'll get treated poorly by society and by individuals within that society - Social Stigma (Outsider) will do the same. If you couple these with one or more of the above, especially the ones just above, you'll eventually end up with bad problems. Expect such combinations to spiral - especially the usual Bad Temper/Bloodlust/Overconfidence trio on top of any of these.
Fanaticism - especially if to something evil or hostile.
Monstrous Traits
These traits generally make it impossible for you to get along with others in general. It's likely if you have one or more of these, you're likely to considered a "monster" and killed out of hand.
Compulsive Killing, Odious Personal Habit (Eats Other Sentients), Uncontrollable Appetite (Mortal Flesh) - these kinds of traits make it extremely hard for anyone to treat you as much except a monster. This is double true if combined with some of the traits above. Add Bestial if you really want nothing and no one to like you at all.
IQ 0 or close to it, combined with any traits that make you regard other beings as food = likely monstrous in society's eyes. No one one likes to be eaten.
Social Stigma (Monster) is one that's not your fault in and of itself; it's possible to have this and no other negative traits. It's more likely, though, that this is just society reacting to the actions of your race. This isn't one you'd commonly expect to find on its own.
Other Traits
These aren't actually disadvantages, but they are traits that define you.
Truly Evil. This is just a 0-point entry in the Notes section of a monster description. It doesn't really require a trait - you could have nothing but positive traits but be otherwise allied to Evil, and affected by spells that have some sort of special effect on Evil. You may not be a "monster" by any other definition, but you're one of the bad ones.
Unwilling to negotiate. This knocks off your other option for dealing with such beings. If you or they have this, it doesn't really matter if one of you considers the other a monster or food or whatever. Your common ground is fight, or flee.
Notes:
- I'm sure I'm missing some obvious examples of traits that point to unpleasant or monstrous behavior. Let me know in the comments, and if I agree, I'll add them.
- I left Greed off on purpose. It's not a positive trait, but I don't see it directly tied to behavior that leads to violence, or gets you treated as a monster or close to it. It's not a good one in combination with others, but it's not quite as chilling as Callous or Fanaticism or Sadism is, in my experience.
* I've occasionally told players that taking Berserk on a character is a) a disadvantage, and b) will eventually lead to your character's death in combat. They still take it, and they're still disappointed when they die in combat.
What traits in GURPS are generally those that would mark a being as generally hostile?
This is largely from a fantasy or space opera perspective, and includes some things from GURPS Dungeon Fantasy . . . but much it applies in general. If you have an addiction to murder and a sadistic streak, you're probably a monster in any game.
Unpleasant Traits
These traits are ones that make it more difficult to get along with a given being. They're not pleasant, but not necessarily monster-like or capital-E evil.
Good examples of these are Bully, Bloodlust, Callous, Intolerance, Sadism - these all make it more likely than not you'll earn a hostile reaction eventually.
Paranoia and Megalomania - eventually these will put you at odds with others, either through your fear of them or your assumption of superiority over them and your attempts to asset it.
Bad Temper, Berserk*, Compulsive Behavior (Fighting) - these all make it likely you'll eventually provoke a response by your actions - you'll take direct action that leads to violence, resort to violence, or resort to some kind of insult and end up fighting.
Social Stigma (Outlaw), Social Stigma (Excommunicated) - these classify you as an "other" due to legal or religious reasons. You'll get treated poorly by society and by individuals within that society - Social Stigma (Outsider) will do the same. If you couple these with one or more of the above, especially the ones just above, you'll eventually end up with bad problems. Expect such combinations to spiral - especially the usual Bad Temper/Bloodlust/Overconfidence trio on top of any of these.
Fanaticism - especially if to something evil or hostile.
Monstrous Traits
These traits generally make it impossible for you to get along with others in general. It's likely if you have one or more of these, you're likely to considered a "monster" and killed out of hand.
Compulsive Killing, Odious Personal Habit (Eats Other Sentients), Uncontrollable Appetite (Mortal Flesh) - these kinds of traits make it extremely hard for anyone to treat you as much except a monster. This is double true if combined with some of the traits above. Add Bestial if you really want nothing and no one to like you at all.
IQ 0 or close to it, combined with any traits that make you regard other beings as food = likely monstrous in society's eyes. No one one likes to be eaten.
Social Stigma (Monster) is one that's not your fault in and of itself; it's possible to have this and no other negative traits. It's more likely, though, that this is just society reacting to the actions of your race. This isn't one you'd commonly expect to find on its own.
Other Traits
These aren't actually disadvantages, but they are traits that define you.
Truly Evil. This is just a 0-point entry in the Notes section of a monster description. It doesn't really require a trait - you could have nothing but positive traits but be otherwise allied to Evil, and affected by spells that have some sort of special effect on Evil. You may not be a "monster" by any other definition, but you're one of the bad ones.
Unwilling to negotiate. This knocks off your other option for dealing with such beings. If you or they have this, it doesn't really matter if one of you considers the other a monster or food or whatever. Your common ground is fight, or flee.
Notes:
- I'm sure I'm missing some obvious examples of traits that point to unpleasant or monstrous behavior. Let me know in the comments, and if I agree, I'll add them.
- I left Greed off on purpose. It's not a positive trait, but I don't see it directly tied to behavior that leads to violence, or gets you treated as a monster or close to it. It's not a good one in combination with others, but it's not quite as chilling as Callous or Fanaticism or Sadism is, in my experience.
* I've occasionally told players that taking Berserk on a character is a) a disadvantage, and b) will eventually lead to your character's death in combat. They still take it, and they're still disappointed when they die in combat.
Friday, August 7, 2020
Random Thoughts & Links for Friday - 8/7/2020
Some thoughts and links for the week.
- My week is always more quiet after a multi-session delve breaks off mid-session than between regular sessions. PCs can't do anything, so I get a lot less emails about in-town activities to answer.
- House Rules for Swords & Wizardry - I always enjoy reading other people's house rules. These are pretty interesting. In a game like S&W, where stat increases are helpful but not game-breaking, the re-rolls are interesting.
- 2020 GURPS Challenge PDFs: Incense Trail - Matt goes over some pricing for incenses in GURPS. In the comments you can see us discuss gold vs. silver prices. 12.5:1 was the official Roman level, so a slightly less valuable gold in 10:1 would make sense. If I did bigger and more inflated coins in my DF game, $1 silver and $10 gold wouldn't be crazy. Of course, with 50 coins/pound would mean gold is $500/pound or 1/10th of my current, and a 20-pound gold ingot is a mere $10,000. Heh. A lot of stuff becomes worth its weight in gold in such a system. It's a thought!
- Help the Asfolk Viking Martial Arts School If You Can - in Doug's post (read it) is buried something that could be game-useful. Doug says, "It’s a distinct alternative to the traditional Asian martial arts (not throwing shade there: I was a happy practitioner of a Korean style for more than 15 years)".
It's telling that Doug mentions a difference from traditional studies of Asian arts, and then has to cover by saying he's got a background in that. The often-bitter Asian vs. European martial arts conflict is alive and well. How to represent that in game?
For most games, this is a quirk.
Either:
Delusion (Asian arts / WMA are objectively superior)
or
Intolerance (Asian martial arts / WMA)
For a martial arts centric game, this should be -5 points for either. If the delusion causes you to underestimate the abilities of others, it's more like -10 or even -15 most of the time. See GURPS Martial Arts (p. 53-54) for examples.
- The Many Deaths of the OSR. Lich Van Winkle links to many conflicts within the OSR. I link to, and linked to, a lot of self-described OSR blogs. I have played retro-clones. I run a very old-style dungeon exploration game, using a mix of what we never did plus ways I always played games back in the day. I never knowingly described myself as part of the OSR. I've always felt like I was on the sidelines. I play games with a similar bent, and played with self-described OSR people, and I recognize some connection, but I always feel like I'm my own thing here.
- Someone is buying my Ogre minis as a lot. I probably could have gotten more on eBay, but I could also have ended up with extra stuff no one bid on, and had to do the whole thing again.
I will get the auctions up in a few days with some other stuff, though - terrain, movies, and some other non-gaming stuff.
- My week is always more quiet after a multi-session delve breaks off mid-session than between regular sessions. PCs can't do anything, so I get a lot less emails about in-town activities to answer.
- House Rules for Swords & Wizardry - I always enjoy reading other people's house rules. These are pretty interesting. In a game like S&W, where stat increases are helpful but not game-breaking, the re-rolls are interesting.
- 2020 GURPS Challenge PDFs: Incense Trail - Matt goes over some pricing for incenses in GURPS. In the comments you can see us discuss gold vs. silver prices. 12.5:1 was the official Roman level, so a slightly less valuable gold in 10:1 would make sense. If I did bigger and more inflated coins in my DF game, $1 silver and $10 gold wouldn't be crazy. Of course, with 50 coins/pound would mean gold is $500/pound or 1/10th of my current, and a 20-pound gold ingot is a mere $10,000. Heh. A lot of stuff becomes worth its weight in gold in such a system. It's a thought!
- Help the Asfolk Viking Martial Arts School If You Can - in Doug's post (read it) is buried something that could be game-useful. Doug says, "It’s a distinct alternative to the traditional Asian martial arts (not throwing shade there: I was a happy practitioner of a Korean style for more than 15 years)".
It's telling that Doug mentions a difference from traditional studies of Asian arts, and then has to cover by saying he's got a background in that. The often-bitter Asian vs. European martial arts conflict is alive and well. How to represent that in game?
For most games, this is a quirk.
Either:
Delusion (Asian arts / WMA are objectively superior)
or
Intolerance (Asian martial arts / WMA)
For a martial arts centric game, this should be -5 points for either. If the delusion causes you to underestimate the abilities of others, it's more like -10 or even -15 most of the time. See GURPS Martial Arts (p. 53-54) for examples.
- The Many Deaths of the OSR. Lich Van Winkle links to many conflicts within the OSR. I link to, and linked to, a lot of self-described OSR blogs. I have played retro-clones. I run a very old-style dungeon exploration game, using a mix of what we never did plus ways I always played games back in the day. I never knowingly described myself as part of the OSR. I've always felt like I was on the sidelines. I play games with a similar bent, and played with self-described OSR people, and I recognize some connection, but I always feel like I'm my own thing here.
- Someone is buying my Ogre minis as a lot. I probably could have gotten more on eBay, but I could also have ended up with extra stuff no one bid on, and had to do the whole thing again.
I will get the auctions up in a few days with some other stuff, though - terrain, movies, and some other non-gaming stuff.
Sunday, May 10, 2020
Felltower: What Disadvantages do the PCs have?
Here are the answers to the guessing game:
Galen
Bloodlust (12)
Callous (12)
Intolerance (Urbanites)
Loner
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Vow (Own no more than can be carried.)
This is an exact description of Galen - he's a cold, heartless loner who hates city-folk, lives a backwoods minimalist existence, and kills everything that crosses his bow sight if it'll benefit him in any way. He's true to his companions, but if you get outside of his in-group, he'll kill you and not give it a second thought.
Gerry
Curious (12)
Oblivious
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Stubbornness (12)
Weirdness Magnet*
Gerry is actually quite religious, and brings his skeletons to church with him. He hasn't noticed this is a problem. He does still have Weirdness Magnet but we've been discussion replacements. Being Excommunicated is a big deal in a one-church setting; it's basically playing on hardcore mode as the cleric won't heal you and you can't get Resurrection or other healing magic performed. So Heyden doesn't have it either, but he's been getting close with his out-and-out worship of a magical idol instead of the Good God.
Mild Bruce
Bad Temper (9)
Easy to Read
OPH (Underdressed Savage)
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Social Stigma (Minority Group)
Crogar
Bloodlust (12)
Easy to Read
Gluttony (12)
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Social Stigma (Minority Group)
Important quirk: Dislikes swamps. The player's mom told him to avoid swamps in my games.
Crogar, like Mild Bruce, Mo (his momma call him Kle), and Bjorn are/were all Shirtless Savages from DFD: Barbarians. They have DR that doesn't stack with armor - no Vow, just an advantage negated by armoring up. This does wonders for Move, Dodge, and savings! Unlike Bruce, though, he's not an underdressed savage. Presentation and comportment matter.
Ulf
Compulsive Generosity
Disciplines of Faith (Ritualism)
Gluttony (12)
Honesty (12)
Intolerance ("Evil" religions)
Selfless
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Sense of Duty (Co-religionists)
Those are subject to change; I haven't seen his new list post-Resurrection but it's possible he's getting Charitable and re-jiggering his disadvantages.
Misc:
Gwynneth, Quenton Mudborne (but not Quenton Gale), and Galoob Jah - only the latter two have Cowardice. Felltower Goblins have Cowardice. Gwynneth was just a low-HP, low-DR wizard and thus very squishy. She was appropriately cautious; I don't think anyone ever accused her of being run cowardly.
Varmus has Disturbing Voice but not Criminal Record. He say he's not required to discuss his hanging (if indeed he was hanged) with you, because he took the Legalistic quirk.
Inquisitor Marco had Intolerance ("Evil" religions) and Fanaticism (Destroy Undead.)
Wyatt - Overconfidence, yes. Only at a 12 or less but like Hillbilly with Bad Temper, he never rolls. He doesn't have a Delusion about being an Inquisitor, but we've talked about upping it from a quirk to an OPH based on how frequently he gives Ulf a hard time (basically, every time Ulf talks, or fails at a spell, or otherwise expresses "doubt")
Hasdrubel and Dryst both lack Sense of Duty to anyone. Both had/have an Obsession to become the world's most powerful wizard. Both also had/have Laziness, so don't feel too threatened. They'll get to their ambition later.
Did I miss anything?
Disads and Quirks in my game are flexible; you can change them as needed. You're expected to play the ones on your sheet, but you can change them to whatever actual reflects how you want to / actually do play your character. So some of these changed and will change as people change how they play. Galen and Crogar have been very steady - they play like they read.
Galen
Bloodlust (12)
Callous (12)
Intolerance (Urbanites)
Loner
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Vow (Own no more than can be carried.)
This is an exact description of Galen - he's a cold, heartless loner who hates city-folk, lives a backwoods minimalist existence, and kills everything that crosses his bow sight if it'll benefit him in any way. He's true to his companions, but if you get outside of his in-group, he'll kill you and not give it a second thought.
Gerry
Curious (12)
Oblivious
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Stubbornness (12)
Weirdness Magnet*
Gerry is actually quite religious, and brings his skeletons to church with him. He hasn't noticed this is a problem. He does still have Weirdness Magnet but we've been discussion replacements. Being Excommunicated is a big deal in a one-church setting; it's basically playing on hardcore mode as the cleric won't heal you and you can't get Resurrection or other healing magic performed. So Heyden doesn't have it either, but he's been getting close with his out-and-out worship of a magical idol instead of the Good God.
Mild Bruce
Bad Temper (9)
Easy to Read
OPH (Underdressed Savage)
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Social Stigma (Minority Group)
Crogar
Bloodlust (12)
Easy to Read
Gluttony (12)
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Social Stigma (Minority Group)
Important quirk: Dislikes swamps. The player's mom told him to avoid swamps in my games.
Crogar, like Mild Bruce, Mo (his momma call him Kle), and Bjorn are/were all Shirtless Savages from DFD: Barbarians. They have DR that doesn't stack with armor - no Vow, just an advantage negated by armoring up. This does wonders for Move, Dodge, and savings! Unlike Bruce, though, he's not an underdressed savage. Presentation and comportment matter.
Ulf
Compulsive Generosity
Disciplines of Faith (Ritualism)
Gluttony (12)
Honesty (12)
Intolerance ("Evil" religions)
Selfless
Sense of Duty (Adventuring Companions)
Sense of Duty (Co-religionists)
Those are subject to change; I haven't seen his new list post-Resurrection but it's possible he's getting Charitable and re-jiggering his disadvantages.
Misc:
Gwynneth, Quenton Mudborne (but not Quenton Gale), and Galoob Jah - only the latter two have Cowardice. Felltower Goblins have Cowardice. Gwynneth was just a low-HP, low-DR wizard and thus very squishy. She was appropriately cautious; I don't think anyone ever accused her of being run cowardly.
Varmus has Disturbing Voice but not Criminal Record. He say he's not required to discuss his hanging (if indeed he was hanged) with you, because he took the Legalistic quirk.
Inquisitor Marco had Intolerance ("Evil" religions) and Fanaticism (Destroy Undead.)
Wyatt - Overconfidence, yes. Only at a 12 or less but like Hillbilly with Bad Temper, he never rolls. He doesn't have a Delusion about being an Inquisitor, but we've talked about upping it from a quirk to an OPH based on how frequently he gives Ulf a hard time (basically, every time Ulf talks, or fails at a spell, or otherwise expresses "doubt")
Hasdrubel and Dryst both lack Sense of Duty to anyone. Both had/have an Obsession to become the world's most powerful wizard. Both also had/have Laziness, so don't feel too threatened. They'll get to their ambition later.
Did I miss anything?
Disads and Quirks in my game are flexible; you can change them as needed. You're expected to play the ones on your sheet, but you can change them to whatever actual reflects how you want to / actually do play your character. So some of these changed and will change as people change how they play. Galen and Crogar have been very steady - they play like they read.
Friday, May 8, 2020
Felltower PC Disadvantages Guessing Game
Late this past week, one of my players emailed me about the possibility of changing up disadvantages.
He posed an interesting question - without looking at his character sheet, what disadvantages did I think the PC had, at what self control rolls? (and presumably why I thought so.)
It wasn't really a fair question to me. We played this past Sunday, and as part of pre-game prep I look at everyone's sheets to remind myself of their ads, disads, and quirks. Mostly disads and quirks; a 15-advantage list like Aldwyn's can glaze my eyes over.
But I thought . . . what do the blog readers think are the disadvantages that PCs have? You don't get to see them played, but you do get to see their actions through my words. I've flat-out stated some of them, but others I expect just are obvious.
If you'd like to play along, just post in a the comments the PC, and what disadvantages you think that PC has. I'll post the actual lists of any PCs people guess about on Sunday.
He posed an interesting question - without looking at his character sheet, what disadvantages did I think the PC had, at what self control rolls? (and presumably why I thought so.)
It wasn't really a fair question to me. We played this past Sunday, and as part of pre-game prep I look at everyone's sheets to remind myself of their ads, disads, and quirks. Mostly disads and quirks; a 15-advantage list like Aldwyn's can glaze my eyes over.
But I thought . . . what do the blog readers think are the disadvantages that PCs have? You don't get to see them played, but you do get to see their actions through my words. I've flat-out stated some of them, but others I expect just are obvious.
If you'd like to play along, just post in a the comments the PC, and what disadvantages you think that PC has. I'll post the actual lists of any PCs people guess about on Sunday.
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Revised Disadvantages for GURPS DF Felltower
In light of my recent post about disadvantages, here are some revisions.
Bad Temper
As written, plus you must make a self-control roll not to lash out verbally or physically at any foe that insults you, or attacks you, even if you've got better (or other) targets. If you also have Bloodlust, you will not be distracted from finishing a foe before moving on to the one angering you . . . and any that anger you must force a check at the lower of your Bad Temper or Bloodlust self-control roll to stop hitting the foe after its down, even when it's obviously dead.
Code of Honor (Chivalry)
Per Dungeon Fantasy Role-Playing Game Adventurers, p. 58, not per Basic Set, with the following clarifications:
- "civilized folk" includes things that appear to be civilized folks (if it looks like a dwarf, treat it as one) and things that clearly aren't "folks" but are clearly civilized. People/things with Social Stigma (Outsider), (Savage), (Criminal), or (Monster) can be dealt with as lessers; for everyone else fights must not take unfair advantage. No flanks, no fighting the unarmed while armed, etc.
"Must protect" doesn't necessarily mean you need to interpose yourself between the squishy types and the enemy at all times, but it's a good move and it should be your go-to. You'll take extra risks above and beyond those necessary if that's what it takes. Sacrificial defense perks are helpful for this but not required.
"Never refuse to defend civilization against Evil." Using negotiation to defuse a threat is fine; not seeking out a fight you can't win is fine. Deciding a fight against Evil is unwinnable shouldn't actually cause you not to fight.
Cowardice
Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't require a check before going on a delve.
Honesty
Includes Truthfulness to an extent - you must make a self-control roll to lie even when it's not illegal to do so. Your ability to do so is not impaired.
Vow (Never refuse a challenge to combat)
Clarification: this is any goad to fighting, not just a formal challenge. Answering an informal challenge with a formal one of your own is fine, but you will fight regardless of your opponent's willingness to accept a formal duel. Nothing in this Vow insists the fight be fair on either side - if you insist on making it so, take an appropriate Code of Honor; your opponent is not bound by any disadvantages except their own.
If you have a Code of Honor which already requires you to accept formal challenges (Chivalry, Bushido, Gentleman's), the vow is only worth -5 points as it only expands the challenges you'll accept from "honorable foe" to "anyone."
Sense of Duty
Note that Sense of Duty automatically overcomes other disadvantages that interfere with it. These include Cowardice, Bloodlust, etc. You still must attempt to follow Codes, Vows, etc. - you'll just do so in a way that helps those you have a SoD toward.
(Good Entities) isn't really relevant in Felltower. (Coreligionists) covers the same ground for all purposes since there is only one major religion in the area.
Stubbornness
As Adventurers, pp. 66, plus a self-control roll is appropriate when someone else proposes a plan that's different from yours.
Notes:
I'm looking to provide clear, preferably mechanical, guidelines for when and how disadvantages affect your character. This way they're easier to adjudicate and everyone goes into each character's creation and play with an idea of what their disadvantages will really do. Some disadvantages a just a bit harsh, too, and I prefer to make some of them less so in order to make the game play more smoothly.
The "Never refuse a challenge" vow is one we've had issues with. It's generally been held to mean, and played as if, it only applies to formal, fair duels. "Fair" as defined as one-on-one, with the enemy refraining from any and all support of the duelist. In other words, it was played as if the disadvantage applied to the enemy. If someone banged a shield or issued a clear call to fight, the PC would generally throw back a "come fight me man to man or you're a coward!" response, and then only grudgingly fight if that was the case. I want to make it clear that you're the one with the issue, and you'll step out there even when it's a terrible idea and the fight isn't fair, because you vowed you would. People who want to live a long time don't make this Vow and keep it that long. Remember that even Musashi retired.
I'll add to this post as I notice more disadvantages that need special additions or subtractions.
Bad Temper
As written, plus you must make a self-control roll not to lash out verbally or physically at any foe that insults you, or attacks you, even if you've got better (or other) targets. If you also have Bloodlust, you will not be distracted from finishing a foe before moving on to the one angering you . . . and any that anger you must force a check at the lower of your Bad Temper or Bloodlust self-control roll to stop hitting the foe after its down, even when it's obviously dead.
Code of Honor (Chivalry)
Per Dungeon Fantasy Role-Playing Game Adventurers, p. 58, not per Basic Set, with the following clarifications:
- "civilized folk" includes things that appear to be civilized folks (if it looks like a dwarf, treat it as one) and things that clearly aren't "folks" but are clearly civilized. People/things with Social Stigma (Outsider), (Savage), (Criminal), or (Monster) can be dealt with as lessers; for everyone else fights must not take unfair advantage. No flanks, no fighting the unarmed while armed, etc.
"Must protect" doesn't necessarily mean you need to interpose yourself between the squishy types and the enemy at all times, but it's a good move and it should be your go-to. You'll take extra risks above and beyond those necessary if that's what it takes. Sacrificial defense perks are helpful for this but not required.
"Never refuse to defend civilization against Evil." Using negotiation to defuse a threat is fine; not seeking out a fight you can't win is fine. Deciding a fight against Evil is unwinnable shouldn't actually cause you not to fight.
Cowardice
Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't require a check before going on a delve.
Honesty
Includes Truthfulness to an extent - you must make a self-control roll to lie even when it's not illegal to do so. Your ability to do so is not impaired.
Vow (Never refuse a challenge to combat)
Clarification: this is any goad to fighting, not just a formal challenge. Answering an informal challenge with a formal one of your own is fine, but you will fight regardless of your opponent's willingness to accept a formal duel. Nothing in this Vow insists the fight be fair on either side - if you insist on making it so, take an appropriate Code of Honor; your opponent is not bound by any disadvantages except their own.
If you have a Code of Honor which already requires you to accept formal challenges (Chivalry, Bushido, Gentleman's), the vow is only worth -5 points as it only expands the challenges you'll accept from "honorable foe" to "anyone."
Sense of Duty
Note that Sense of Duty automatically overcomes other disadvantages that interfere with it. These include Cowardice, Bloodlust, etc. You still must attempt to follow Codes, Vows, etc. - you'll just do so in a way that helps those you have a SoD toward.
(Good Entities) isn't really relevant in Felltower. (Coreligionists) covers the same ground for all purposes since there is only one major religion in the area.
Stubbornness
As Adventurers, pp. 66, plus a self-control roll is appropriate when someone else proposes a plan that's different from yours.
Notes:
I'm looking to provide clear, preferably mechanical, guidelines for when and how disadvantages affect your character. This way they're easier to adjudicate and everyone goes into each character's creation and play with an idea of what their disadvantages will really do. Some disadvantages a just a bit harsh, too, and I prefer to make some of them less so in order to make the game play more smoothly.
The "Never refuse a challenge" vow is one we've had issues with. It's generally been held to mean, and played as if, it only applies to formal, fair duels. "Fair" as defined as one-on-one, with the enemy refraining from any and all support of the duelist. In other words, it was played as if the disadvantage applied to the enemy. If someone banged a shield or issued a clear call to fight, the PC would generally throw back a "come fight me man to man or you're a coward!" response, and then only grudgingly fight if that was the case. I want to make it clear that you're the one with the issue, and you'll step out there even when it's a terrible idea and the fight isn't fair, because you vowed you would. People who want to live a long time don't make this Vow and keep it that long. Remember that even Musashi retired.
I'll add to this post as I notice more disadvantages that need special additions or subtractions.
Sunday, March 29, 2020
What disadvantages are mis-priced in GURPS DF Felltower?
Some disadvantages effectively have less disadvantage for their points in my DF game. Others have a significant amount of impact for less points. This isn't exhaustive, but it is a list of ones that stick out to me.
I will have some revision suggestions embedded below, but I'll also be coming up with more. For a further look at disadvantages, check out my new Disadvantages post label.
Less Impact:
Bad Temper [-10]. This one should make for a lot of aggression, and bad decisions based on foes targeting you, or hurting you, or insulting you. Or frustrating traps or puzzles might anger you. In actual play . . . it sits on the character sheet and maybe - if the player really, really feels like this situation is incredibly upsetting in a special fashion - gets the self-control number rolled against. Generally, this isn't worth the points most people get back from it. This should probably have concrete effects, much like Berserk does. In fact, that's a good fix - you must make a self-control roll not to lash out verbally or physically at any foe that insults you, or attacks you, even if you've got better (or other) targets. If you also have Bloodlust, you will not be distracted from finishing a foe before moving on to the one angering you . . . and any that anger you must force a check at the lower of your Bad Temper or Bloodlust self-control roll to stop hitting the foe after its down, even when it's obviously dead.
Code of Honor (Chivalry) [-15]. You must obey your liege lord and faith, protect any ladies and weaker folks, and fight fair if you opponent is also of chivalric background. These come up, respectively, never, never, and almost never in my game. This gains you 15 points and effectively acts as a quirk (save any ladies) and quirk-level Code of Honor (fight fair against other knights with a chivalric background.) This is actually significantly less restrictive in actual play than the Soldier's code, or the Pirate's code. I may just flat-out require a change to the Code, or ban this in favor of the Soldier's code, or put in restrictions about "fair fights" that apply more generally. Perhaps it's against the code to take a flank or back shot against a sapient foe? Perhaps you must accept surrenders except from clearly non-coreligionists? Hmm . . . time to check out the Tales of Froissart again. 15 point Codes shouldn't be an "oh yeah, sometimes this comes up!" kind of things.
Easy to Read [-10]. Given the infrequency of negotiation, and the fact that barbarians aren't ever put in charge of them, means this is free points. It should really be a quirk, or -5 points at most. Unless being "Easy to Read" also means being easy to influence, or easy to trick, or easy to distract, it's really not a whole lot of anything, here. I bet if it gave -2 to resist any influence roll or magical charm attempt people would toss this aside in a split-second. I'm not sure what else would make a good, in-game effect for this in a game where negotiation is uncommon by player choice and it's easy to keep the bad poker players out of the situation. This has had some in-game effects (when the PCs try to lie their butts off to NPCs with the barbarians standing right there, with that look of "I hope they buy this total lie!" on their faces) but not so much that it's worth 10 points to the affected PC.
Honesty [-10]. You follow the law. For the most part, this is only limiting in that characters with it can't sell their loot on the black market, won't traffic in illegal loot, and won't violate the laws of Stericksburg. Otherwise . . . it's legal to kill underground, and what you find is yours. This is probably a -5 point disadvantage, at heart, in a game with broad legal status given to most of what delvers do in the first place. It should probably fold in Truthfulness in this type of game to be worth the full -10.
Intolerance (Urbanites) [-5]. No one is going around reacting at -3 to their fellow teammates, even though the groups is about 2/3 urbanite and 1/3 outdoorsy type. Those urbanites even go shopping for those woodsy loner types and no one seems to mind. Probably should be a quirk.
Vow (Never refuse a challenge to combat) [-10]. This one is entirely on me; I should define what a challenge is. Perhaps it's even the baying of animals attempting to scare you off, or any insult from a foe (say, a draugr) is clearly a direct attempt to get you to fight them and you have to make that happen, etc. Otherwise this has come up only a couple of times in a long campaign full of PCs with it - often multiple ones at the same time. Worth -10 if there are lots of challenges to combat, -1 or -5 if it's a rare but dangerous thing.
Weirdness Magnet [-15]. I had attempted to eliminate this, but a couple of PCs still have it. It just doesn't factor in much in play; it's not a game where outside forces do much to you in particular over and above the other delvers around you. It works for to a mostly-free 15 points, and doesn't even have quirk-level implications. Weirdness Magnet can and should define your life - like Garrett, in the Garrett, P.I. books, who is a bona fide Weirdness Magnet and suffers its effects on his life and reputation. In DF Felltower, nothing really comes of it.
More Impact
Bloodlust [-10]. This has caused a lot of dead foes, including ones who might have been useful alive. It's cost turns in combat, as PCs put in an extra shot on anyone not clearly dead. Not everyone really plays it to the fullest, but many do - it's why you see some folks cheerfully cutting throats after a fight, or putting extra blows in over and above what's needed to kill something. Coupled with Callous, this has caused a lot of dead NPCs.
Cowardice [-10]. This has actually derailed whole session plans, and made some pretty straightforward plans impossible to execute. Well worth -10 and possibly more.
Overconfidence [-5]. Lot of dead PCs with this one, even when they've ferociously optimized to win and survive. Enough said.
Sense of Duty (Fellow Adventurers) [-5]. This is potentially close to worth more than -5. I think it keeps its value mostly because your fellow PCs, when they have it, tend to do more to help you. This one can kill you. On the upside, it's extremely easy to roleplay - take your -5 points, and don't abandon your friends. Many players will act that way anyway.
Vow (Own No More than What Can Be Carried) [-10]. This is very rough in a game centered on loot, with variable climates to be explored, and a need for backup gear. You simply can't own stuff and leave it behind (an exception is made for cash; I'll let you bury some cash somewhere so it's not weighing down your PC, as long as you don't go all Captain Kidd.) Without such generosity it's probably -15, instead, and you can expect to have to sell off your mail armor if you go adventuring without it, or buy winter clothes every winter if you're not toting them to Felltower with you. By the way, this is a quirk in a campaign with Portable Holes.
I'm curious what my players would think are wrongly-priced disadvantages.
I will have some revision suggestions embedded below, but I'll also be coming up with more. For a further look at disadvantages, check out my new Disadvantages post label.
Less Impact:
Bad Temper [-10]. This one should make for a lot of aggression, and bad decisions based on foes targeting you, or hurting you, or insulting you. Or frustrating traps or puzzles might anger you. In actual play . . . it sits on the character sheet and maybe - if the player really, really feels like this situation is incredibly upsetting in a special fashion - gets the self-control number rolled against. Generally, this isn't worth the points most people get back from it. This should probably have concrete effects, much like Berserk does. In fact, that's a good fix - you must make a self-control roll not to lash out verbally or physically at any foe that insults you, or attacks you, even if you've got better (or other) targets. If you also have Bloodlust, you will not be distracted from finishing a foe before moving on to the one angering you . . . and any that anger you must force a check at the lower of your Bad Temper or Bloodlust self-control roll to stop hitting the foe after its down, even when it's obviously dead.
Code of Honor (Chivalry) [-15]. You must obey your liege lord and faith, protect any ladies and weaker folks, and fight fair if you opponent is also of chivalric background. These come up, respectively, never, never, and almost never in my game. This gains you 15 points and effectively acts as a quirk (save any ladies) and quirk-level Code of Honor (fight fair against other knights with a chivalric background.) This is actually significantly less restrictive in actual play than the Soldier's code, or the Pirate's code. I may just flat-out require a change to the Code, or ban this in favor of the Soldier's code, or put in restrictions about "fair fights" that apply more generally. Perhaps it's against the code to take a flank or back shot against a sapient foe? Perhaps you must accept surrenders except from clearly non-coreligionists? Hmm . . . time to check out the Tales of Froissart again. 15 point Codes shouldn't be an "oh yeah, sometimes this comes up!" kind of things.
Easy to Read [-10]. Given the infrequency of negotiation, and the fact that barbarians aren't ever put in charge of them, means this is free points. It should really be a quirk, or -5 points at most. Unless being "Easy to Read" also means being easy to influence, or easy to trick, or easy to distract, it's really not a whole lot of anything, here. I bet if it gave -2 to resist any influence roll or magical charm attempt people would toss this aside in a split-second. I'm not sure what else would make a good, in-game effect for this in a game where negotiation is uncommon by player choice and it's easy to keep the bad poker players out of the situation. This has had some in-game effects (when the PCs try to lie their butts off to NPCs with the barbarians standing right there, with that look of "I hope they buy this total lie!" on their faces) but not so much that it's worth 10 points to the affected PC.
Honesty [-10]. You follow the law. For the most part, this is only limiting in that characters with it can't sell their loot on the black market, won't traffic in illegal loot, and won't violate the laws of Stericksburg. Otherwise . . . it's legal to kill underground, and what you find is yours. This is probably a -5 point disadvantage, at heart, in a game with broad legal status given to most of what delvers do in the first place. It should probably fold in Truthfulness in this type of game to be worth the full -10.
Intolerance (Urbanites) [-5]. No one is going around reacting at -3 to their fellow teammates, even though the groups is about 2/3 urbanite and 1/3 outdoorsy type. Those urbanites even go shopping for those woodsy loner types and no one seems to mind. Probably should be a quirk.
Vow (Never refuse a challenge to combat) [-10]. This one is entirely on me; I should define what a challenge is. Perhaps it's even the baying of animals attempting to scare you off, or any insult from a foe (say, a draugr) is clearly a direct attempt to get you to fight them and you have to make that happen, etc. Otherwise this has come up only a couple of times in a long campaign full of PCs with it - often multiple ones at the same time. Worth -10 if there are lots of challenges to combat, -1 or -5 if it's a rare but dangerous thing.
Weirdness Magnet [-15]. I had attempted to eliminate this, but a couple of PCs still have it. It just doesn't factor in much in play; it's not a game where outside forces do much to you in particular over and above the other delvers around you. It works for to a mostly-free 15 points, and doesn't even have quirk-level implications. Weirdness Magnet can and should define your life - like Garrett, in the Garrett, P.I. books, who is a bona fide Weirdness Magnet and suffers its effects on his life and reputation. In DF Felltower, nothing really comes of it.
More Impact
Bloodlust [-10]. This has caused a lot of dead foes, including ones who might have been useful alive. It's cost turns in combat, as PCs put in an extra shot on anyone not clearly dead. Not everyone really plays it to the fullest, but many do - it's why you see some folks cheerfully cutting throats after a fight, or putting extra blows in over and above what's needed to kill something. Coupled with Callous, this has caused a lot of dead NPCs.
Cowardice [-10]. This has actually derailed whole session plans, and made some pretty straightforward plans impossible to execute. Well worth -10 and possibly more.
Overconfidence [-5]. Lot of dead PCs with this one, even when they've ferociously optimized to win and survive. Enough said.
Sense of Duty (Fellow Adventurers) [-5]. This is potentially close to worth more than -5. I think it keeps its value mostly because your fellow PCs, when they have it, tend to do more to help you. This one can kill you. On the upside, it's extremely easy to roleplay - take your -5 points, and don't abandon your friends. Many players will act that way anyway.
Vow (Own No More than What Can Be Carried) [-10]. This is very rough in a game centered on loot, with variable climates to be explored, and a need for backup gear. You simply can't own stuff and leave it behind (an exception is made for cash; I'll let you bury some cash somewhere so it's not weighing down your PC, as long as you don't go all Captain Kidd.) Without such generosity it's probably -15, instead, and you can expect to have to sell off your mail armor if you go adventuring without it, or buy winter clothes every winter if you're not toting them to Felltower with you. By the way, this is a quirk in a campaign with Portable Holes.
I'm curious what my players would think are wrongly-priced disadvantages.
Friday, February 10, 2017
Disadvantages in my GURPS Game Part IV: Point Theory
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.
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.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Disadvantages in my GURPS Games, Part III: Changing Disadvantages in Play
Third in a series of posts on disadvantages in my GURPS game.
Disadvantages are Changeable in Play
Disadvantages are not set in stone in my game. They're meant to reflect your character as it currently exists and how it is actually played.
While disadvantages are prescriptive ("Berserk says I'm like this . . . " not "I'm Berserk like this . . . "), which ones you will have are descriptive.
In other words, if you play a guy who is bad tempered, you should have Bad Temper on your sheet. Then we play with that disadvantage in effect as written. Even if you've conceived of your minotaur as a calm, unflappable gentleman, if you have Berserk (9) on your sheet . . . he really also has Delusion ("I'm a calm, unflappable gentleman") but snaps on a 10 or more.
But what if it's down on your sheet, but you know, this doesn't really feel like how my guy should be . . . or how I actually like to run this guy?
You can't change them freely . . .
As the above implies, so a degree you're stuck with your disadvantages. You can't change them during a game session. What it says on your sheet is what you need to do and the rules you need to follow.
. . . but you're free to change them.
Between sessions, though, based on actual play, I'm happy to let people change their disadvantages. Made a berserker but found it's hard for you to really let go and All-Out Attack when there is a smarter move on the table? Made a guy who has Sense of Duty (Close Friends and Companions) but it's clear he'd sooner abandon a friend than risk death? Made a guy obsessed with a specific goal but find that goal is actually kind of counter to how the game is going? Made a guy with Bloodlust but you're constantly making the Self-Control roll because you just don't enjoy running a guy who'd "security stab" a downed foe?
Change it.
Discuss it with me, first, of course, but then you can change it. Your disadvantages should feel normal and natural and free-flowing. They should come up in play because you want them to. Or at least, groan partly in enjoyment as they make you do stuff that yeah, really does fit your guy.
My preferred path is to downgrade over time. Move a disad to a quirk, a quirk to nothing. But only if the originally conceived disadvantage fits at all. If not, ditch it entirely.
Good examples I've seen in play are downgrading Berserk (Battle Fury) to Berserk, or Berserk to Bad Temper. Changing Greedy to Obsession (Accumulate power) - that on a guy who'd forsake money, we found, if an actual change at long-term power gains were there. Adding Overconfidence to a character who took silly risks just because, while removing it from a character whose player simply could not help because meticulously careful.
You can't change them willy nilly, constantly. It's really something meant for downtime when both player and GM realize what's on the sheet is pushing in a different direction than actual play. But they're not permanent.
Buying them off entirely is as simple as that - downgrade it and spend the points for the difference. In a sufficiently flexible game (my DF game is a good example), you can just plunk down the points and get rid of it.
Ultimately disadvantages are meant in my game to be points back for limitations on your play that demonstrate and shape how you play. They aren't set-in-stone decisions that can never be undone.*
* We call those, "points spent on advantages." Or, that time that you Retreated right into the worse spot possible. Oops.
Disadvantages are Changeable in Play
Disadvantages are not set in stone in my game. They're meant to reflect your character as it currently exists and how it is actually played.
While disadvantages are prescriptive ("Berserk says I'm like this . . . " not "I'm Berserk like this . . . "), which ones you will have are descriptive.
In other words, if you play a guy who is bad tempered, you should have Bad Temper on your sheet. Then we play with that disadvantage in effect as written. Even if you've conceived of your minotaur as a calm, unflappable gentleman, if you have Berserk (9) on your sheet . . . he really also has Delusion ("I'm a calm, unflappable gentleman") but snaps on a 10 or more.
But what if it's down on your sheet, but you know, this doesn't really feel like how my guy should be . . . or how I actually like to run this guy?
You can't change them freely . . .
As the above implies, so a degree you're stuck with your disadvantages. You can't change them during a game session. What it says on your sheet is what you need to do and the rules you need to follow.
. . . but you're free to change them.
Between sessions, though, based on actual play, I'm happy to let people change their disadvantages. Made a berserker but found it's hard for you to really let go and All-Out Attack when there is a smarter move on the table? Made a guy who has Sense of Duty (Close Friends and Companions) but it's clear he'd sooner abandon a friend than risk death? Made a guy obsessed with a specific goal but find that goal is actually kind of counter to how the game is going? Made a guy with Bloodlust but you're constantly making the Self-Control roll because you just don't enjoy running a guy who'd "security stab" a downed foe?
Change it.
Discuss it with me, first, of course, but then you can change it. Your disadvantages should feel normal and natural and free-flowing. They should come up in play because you want them to. Or at least, groan partly in enjoyment as they make you do stuff that yeah, really does fit your guy.
My preferred path is to downgrade over time. Move a disad to a quirk, a quirk to nothing. But only if the originally conceived disadvantage fits at all. If not, ditch it entirely.
Good examples I've seen in play are downgrading Berserk (Battle Fury) to Berserk, or Berserk to Bad Temper. Changing Greedy to Obsession (Accumulate power) - that on a guy who'd forsake money, we found, if an actual change at long-term power gains were there. Adding Overconfidence to a character who took silly risks just because, while removing it from a character whose player simply could not help because meticulously careful.
You can't change them willy nilly, constantly. It's really something meant for downtime when both player and GM realize what's on the sheet is pushing in a different direction than actual play. But they're not permanent.
Buying them off entirely is as simple as that - downgrade it and spend the points for the difference. In a sufficiently flexible game (my DF game is a good example), you can just plunk down the points and get rid of it.
Ultimately disadvantages are meant in my game to be points back for limitations on your play that demonstrate and shape how you play. They aren't set-in-stone decisions that can never be undone.*
* We call those, "points spent on advantages." Or, that time that you Retreated right into the worse spot possible. Oops.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Disadvantages in my GURPS Games, Part II: Mitigating Disads
Continuing yesterday's post on disadvantages.
Better Big and Few than Small and Many
Just from experience, as crippling as a big disadvantage looks on paper, it's better to have a pair of -15s and a pair of -10s or a -30 and a pair of -10s than a -10 and eight -5s. They're all -50 points, but it's too much to keep up with. "I'm a seriously greedy dude with a Sense of Duty to my friends and a penchant for gambling" is way, way easier to play (and play with) than "I'm a mildly greedy dude with a bad temper, overconfidence, a Sense of Duty to my friends, who is afraid of heights, a glutton, who is hunted by his evil twin brother, is easy to read, and who is obsessed with becoming the world's best swordsman."
The "death of a thousand cuts" to avoid one bad disadvantage makes your character harder to play. It's almost certain they'll come up even more often than the big bad disadvantage. And it is certain you'll forget about some of them except when the GM reminds you or you look at your sheet. Don't try to eke out -50 or -40 or -whatever the easy way - find something that can really be a centerpiece disad or two like that and one or two complementary ones and be done with it.
Mitigating Disadvantages With Abilities
One canonical standard for disadvantages is that if something doesn't actually cause any disadvantage, it doesn't get you any points.
That standard has been extended on occasion to mean if you can fully mitigate the consequences of a disadvantage, it's not worth any points.
I agree with the first but not the second.
As long as there are still consequences to a disadvantage, it's still a valid disadvantage even if you can overcome some of them through other means. If you can utterly and fully negate it, that's a different case.
For example, if you have Bloodlust and have Legal Immunity (License to Kill) in some cinematic action game, yeah, you love to kill people. You do it a lot, even when it's a bad idea. And you've plunked down points to say it's okay. I'm okay with this. I think that's fair - there are costs for your disadvantage. There are consequences that apply even when there are no legal repercussions in the game.
Or if you've got high Status and Greedy, in a world where high status allows you access to a lot of money and few consequences for scrabbling for more (Marcus Lucinius Crassus, say), Greedy still has consequences. Annoyed people you bilked of money because you could make a deal unfair to them. Choices between "more money" and "more allies" that you go with "more money" on. Times when you value wealth more than costly decisions that'll set you up for long-term success. Still an issue, even if your Status waves away some of the consequences.
Basically those points have partly funded (or sometimes fully funded - that's rare though) the mitigation. You're still worse off than the guy with Legal Immunity or Status that isn't killing people out of compulsion or can't keep his mitts off of money.
Basically this is the old "Is Compulsive Fighting a disadvantage if you're really good at fighting?" To my mind: yes, yes it is.
So it's okay in my games if you take a disad and then work your way around it, especially ones that have constant effects. It's actually pretty interesting if that happens - something that's more fun than just "I'll make my Self-Control roll here."
Tomorrow: Changing disads in play
Better Big and Few than Small and Many
Just from experience, as crippling as a big disadvantage looks on paper, it's better to have a pair of -15s and a pair of -10s or a -30 and a pair of -10s than a -10 and eight -5s. They're all -50 points, but it's too much to keep up with. "I'm a seriously greedy dude with a Sense of Duty to my friends and a penchant for gambling" is way, way easier to play (and play with) than "I'm a mildly greedy dude with a bad temper, overconfidence, a Sense of Duty to my friends, who is afraid of heights, a glutton, who is hunted by his evil twin brother, is easy to read, and who is obsessed with becoming the world's best swordsman."
The "death of a thousand cuts" to avoid one bad disadvantage makes your character harder to play. It's almost certain they'll come up even more often than the big bad disadvantage. And it is certain you'll forget about some of them except when the GM reminds you or you look at your sheet. Don't try to eke out -50 or -40 or -whatever the easy way - find something that can really be a centerpiece disad or two like that and one or two complementary ones and be done with it.
Mitigating Disadvantages With Abilities
One canonical standard for disadvantages is that if something doesn't actually cause any disadvantage, it doesn't get you any points.
That standard has been extended on occasion to mean if you can fully mitigate the consequences of a disadvantage, it's not worth any points.
I agree with the first but not the second.
As long as there are still consequences to a disadvantage, it's still a valid disadvantage even if you can overcome some of them through other means. If you can utterly and fully negate it, that's a different case.
For example, if you have Bloodlust and have Legal Immunity (License to Kill) in some cinematic action game, yeah, you love to kill people. You do it a lot, even when it's a bad idea. And you've plunked down points to say it's okay. I'm okay with this. I think that's fair - there are costs for your disadvantage. There are consequences that apply even when there are no legal repercussions in the game.
Or if you've got high Status and Greedy, in a world where high status allows you access to a lot of money and few consequences for scrabbling for more (Marcus Lucinius Crassus, say), Greedy still has consequences. Annoyed people you bilked of money because you could make a deal unfair to them. Choices between "more money" and "more allies" that you go with "more money" on. Times when you value wealth more than costly decisions that'll set you up for long-term success. Still an issue, even if your Status waves away some of the consequences.
Basically those points have partly funded (or sometimes fully funded - that's rare though) the mitigation. You're still worse off than the guy with Legal Immunity or Status that isn't killing people out of compulsion or can't keep his mitts off of money.
Basically this is the old "Is Compulsive Fighting a disadvantage if you're really good at fighting?" To my mind: yes, yes it is.
So it's okay in my games if you take a disad and then work your way around it, especially ones that have constant effects. It's actually pretty interesting if that happens - something that's more fun than just "I'll make my Self-Control roll here."
Tomorrow: Changing disads in play
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Disadvantages in my GURPS Games, Part I: The Basics
Disadvantages are fairly fundamental to GURPS. They're amongst the very first things added to Man-to-Man - the first ones showed up in Roleplayer #1. Some of them have hardly changed since then.
How I deal with them in my games is pretty much out of the book, but with some caveats and explanations and clarifications.
Flow Naturally from Play
Your disadvantages should naturally flow from how you play your characters and determines that flow smoothly and naturally.
You want to pick disadvantages that either have set effects you can live with (even thrive with, because they're fun) or have roleplaying consequences you'd like to roleplay out. They shouldn't be forced. And they should fit how you perceive that guy acting in the situations you find yourself in.
You shouldn't need to refresh your memory every session of what's wrong with your guy.
As the GM, I shouldn't have to, either. If I look at your sheet and think, "Oh yeah, I forgot he's Curious" than you're not really being Curious.
Corollary: You should not have to tell anyone. "I run up and push the button because I'm Impulsive!" and "I'm stabbing that wounded guy again because I've got Bloodlust" and "I'm Stubborn, so I disagree. You guys should use Fast-Talk on me!" are really . . . moment-breaking. It's like an actor saying, "Hey, I'm angry because I'm an actor playing an angry guy!" Just play it, we'll know. Apologize during break for your character, doing in play is kind of lame and basically says, [Ralph Wiggum]"I'm Roleplaying!"[/Ralph Wiggum]. It also implies to the other players not to roleplay in a way that blocks you, even if their character would logically do that.
Self-Control as the Exception, not the Rule
The way I see it, if whenever your disadvantages come up in play you think, "I should make a self-control roll to avoid this" or "maybe it doesn't apply in this case," those disadvantages really don't fit your and/or your character.
Of course, there should be times when you really need to exercise some self-restraint and hold back from expressing your disadvantages. It's just an issue when those times are all times. If you read Bad Temper (12) as "On a 12 or less I'm not Bad Tempered," you're not really playing disadvantages the way I'm expecting as a GM. Even more so if you're reading it as "If I can't explain why I shouldn't even need a roll, then I get a 12 or less roll to resist." Being Bad Tempered should be your normal thing, even if you mostly restrain it when it really matters.
Greedy characters should go after money. Overconfident characters should be less willing to accept a situation is beyond them. Gluttons should eat a lot. Compulsive Carousers should be jumping into parties. Guys with Bloodlust should be putting in that extra shot to make sure someone is dead even if the players would prefer prisoners and prefer you not waste that combat turn. And so on.
Self-control rolls are for "I see serious consequences and need to avoid them" not "I see consequences and I need to avoid them." Even then, there should be times you don't want to roll, even if the other players at the table would like you to.
And if you feel this way about your disadvantages, they're really not the ones for you even if they sound right on paper. "My guy gets really mad! Except when it's not convenient, then his iron self-control kicks in." Okay, take a Quirk-level version and just be mad when it's convenient.
Tomorrow: Choosing and Mitigating your disads in my games.
How I deal with them in my games is pretty much out of the book, but with some caveats and explanations and clarifications.
Flow Naturally from Play
Your disadvantages should naturally flow from how you play your characters and determines that flow smoothly and naturally.
You want to pick disadvantages that either have set effects you can live with (even thrive with, because they're fun) or have roleplaying consequences you'd like to roleplay out. They shouldn't be forced. And they should fit how you perceive that guy acting in the situations you find yourself in.
You shouldn't need to refresh your memory every session of what's wrong with your guy.
As the GM, I shouldn't have to, either. If I look at your sheet and think, "Oh yeah, I forgot he's Curious" than you're not really being Curious.
Corollary: You should not have to tell anyone. "I run up and push the button because I'm Impulsive!" and "I'm stabbing that wounded guy again because I've got Bloodlust" and "I'm Stubborn, so I disagree. You guys should use Fast-Talk on me!" are really . . . moment-breaking. It's like an actor saying, "Hey, I'm angry because I'm an actor playing an angry guy!" Just play it, we'll know. Apologize during break for your character, doing in play is kind of lame and basically says, [Ralph Wiggum]"I'm Roleplaying!"[/Ralph Wiggum]. It also implies to the other players not to roleplay in a way that blocks you, even if their character would logically do that.
Self-Control as the Exception, not the Rule
The way I see it, if whenever your disadvantages come up in play you think, "I should make a self-control roll to avoid this" or "maybe it doesn't apply in this case," those disadvantages really don't fit your and/or your character.
Of course, there should be times when you really need to exercise some self-restraint and hold back from expressing your disadvantages. It's just an issue when those times are all times. If you read Bad Temper (12) as "On a 12 or less I'm not Bad Tempered," you're not really playing disadvantages the way I'm expecting as a GM. Even more so if you're reading it as "If I can't explain why I shouldn't even need a roll, then I get a 12 or less roll to resist." Being Bad Tempered should be your normal thing, even if you mostly restrain it when it really matters.
Greedy characters should go after money. Overconfident characters should be less willing to accept a situation is beyond them. Gluttons should eat a lot. Compulsive Carousers should be jumping into parties. Guys with Bloodlust should be putting in that extra shot to make sure someone is dead even if the players would prefer prisoners and prefer you not waste that combat turn. And so on.
Self-control rolls are for "I see serious consequences and need to avoid them" not "I see consequences and I need to avoid them." Even then, there should be times you don't want to roll, even if the other players at the table would like you to.
And if you feel this way about your disadvantages, they're really not the ones for you even if they sound right on paper. "My guy gets really mad! Except when it's not convenient, then his iron self-control kicks in." Okay, take a Quirk-level version and just be mad when it's convenient.
Tomorrow: Choosing and Mitigating your disads in my games.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Cool disadvantage post
Charles Saeger over at The Lands of Nandêmē had an excellent post yesterday on disadvantages, something that's become an accidental daily theme on this blog for the past few days.
Getting Your Points' Worth
For all that I like to strip down the options for my games, I like to have a lot of options in the first place. The more well-developed rules and options there are, the better I can fine tune the ones I use.
The more internally and externally consistent those rules are, the better.
Charles did a lot of internally and externally consistent expansions and development of existing disadvantages. I like this, because they aren't changes to what is in the books but rather more specific definitions of how that works. I especially like the treaments of Gluttony (so it's not just "I eat extra when there is free food and complain once per session when I'm on normal rations") and Overconfidence. And I already do with Compulsive Carousing what he's doing - your cost of living goes up.
I'd suggest an expansion to Laziness: You're at -2 for any self-directed roll in town. Making your own weapons, brewing your own paut, fixing your own gear, finding hirelings, doing your own research, etc. If something involves real work to do and it's binary, make a Will-2 roll capped normally (14+ always fails) to get around to doing it. If a character with laziness also has a compulsive disadvantage, they must roll against the self-control roll for that before doing other work. The Lazy guy with Compulsive Gambling or Addiction will certainly find a way to be industrious about gambling or getting a hit. Guys with Laziness should consider getting a servant hireling and having them do important stuff for them.
Getting Your Points' Worth
For all that I like to strip down the options for my games, I like to have a lot of options in the first place. The more well-developed rules and options there are, the better I can fine tune the ones I use.
The more internally and externally consistent those rules are, the better.
Charles did a lot of internally and externally consistent expansions and development of existing disadvantages. I like this, because they aren't changes to what is in the books but rather more specific definitions of how that works. I especially like the treaments of Gluttony (so it's not just "I eat extra when there is free food and complain once per session when I'm on normal rations") and Overconfidence. And I already do with Compulsive Carousing what he's doing - your cost of living goes up.
I'd suggest an expansion to Laziness: You're at -2 for any self-directed roll in town. Making your own weapons, brewing your own paut, fixing your own gear, finding hirelings, doing your own research, etc. If something involves real work to do and it's binary, make a Will-2 roll capped normally (14+ always fails) to get around to doing it. If a character with laziness also has a compulsive disadvantage, they must roll against the self-control roll for that before doing other work. The Lazy guy with Compulsive Gambling or Addiction will certainly find a way to be industrious about gambling or getting a hit. Guys with Laziness should consider getting a servant hireling and having them do important stuff for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
