Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

As for point values, I think it would depend on the GM. In a game where the GM roleplays his NPCs as open-minded, and the citizenry is tolerant, it probably wouldn't be worth any points. But if you pay 5, 10 or 15 points, you'd better expect it to come up, and in ways that your character won't like.

 

As an example, two of us in Josh's Valdorian campaign took a 10-point "woman in a man's world" limitation. Now, because I took that limitation, I fully expect some misogyny from the NPCs my character interacts with, and it would be extraordinarily bizarre for me to get mad at him for using the disadvantage.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Or to put it maybe more clearly' date=' if a character's sexual orientation causes society to look down on him, that's a Social Limitation. If the character's psyche, background, belief system, etc. are such that his sexual orientation also causes him to look down on [i']himself,[/i] that's a Psychological Limitation.

Well put.

 

I have to say I'm not sure I'd give points for being openly gay in most "modern" US campaigns. That's not to say that gays don't still suffer from discrimination. But how many points a disad is worth also depends on how you plan to use it in-game. If I gave a PC points for it, then I as GM would be forced to regularly put that character in situations where he is discriminated against because of his orientation. Personally, I'd rather not go there. Ditto for racial discrimination.

 

As for a character being closeted, I'd give it a couple points for Harmful Secret, but again the value would depend on how much damage the PC would suffer if the secret got out. So if one of his teammates or family members is a raging homophobe he risks alienating them, but he probably won't lose his job or be jailed or lynched. (Again, not that those things don't still happen, but I'd prefer to keep them out of my games.)

 

Or, to twist OddHat's example: if Jack Hero is gay, but he's in a committed relationship with Lady Justice... now that's gotta be worth a few points.

 

 

bigdamnhero

"Rasputin, bring in the bucket of soapy frogs and remove his trousers."

[beauxdeigh]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Most disadvantages are hooks for me, as a GM, to use to build more interesting stories for my players. The points spent in that field on the sheet are, in a way, a contract between the player and the GM. They, together, agree on what will make the character interesting and real, and promise to abide by that list, for the benefit of the story. Powers and talents and skills don't ground a character in the genre, disadvantages do.

 

If a teleporting martial artist character has the disad Flirtatious and the movie star beauty girlfriend of the team's brick is in the room, the character should make at least one pass at her, whether or not it would irk the brick. I, as the GM, put her there just for that reason, hoping to give the character the chance to roleplay, and expect no less.

 

A gay superhero, in or out, offers some great opportunities, even in the bluer parts of 21st century America. If a player wanted a character who was gay, I would use one of McCoy's values for the disad. His numbers sound just about right.

[Mentor]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

As for point values, I think it would depend on the GM. In a game where the GM roleplays his NPCs as open-minded, and the citizenry is tolerant, it probably wouldn't be worth any points. But if you pay 5, 10 or 15 points, you'd better expect it to come up, and in ways that your character won't like.

 

As an example, two of us in Josh's Valdorian campaign took a 10-point "woman in a man's world" limitation. Now, because I took that limitation, I fully expect some misogyny from the NPCs my character interacts with, and it would be extraordinarily bizarre for me to get mad at him for using the disadvantage.

Agreed. If the player perceives that their sexual preference is a PsychLim, then both player and GM ought to work it in to the campaign through role play, hopefully without being demeaning or insulting.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Don't think even the "lecherous" or "flirtatious" limits have been used in my campaigns. Generally those are more like character traits than limitations.

I would agree. I tend to be fairly strict about players trying to get points just for having a personality. It has to limit them in some way. Now if he/she is lecherous to the point where he/she frequently hits on inappropriate people leading to fights and misunderstandings, or he's easily duped by a pretty face or something, then that's a disad.

 

To be fair, I have broken my own rule on occassion. I used to have one player who tended towards very 2-dimensional characters: power-sets with legs. So letting him take points for personality traits was the only way of assuring that his character would have any personality at all. Fortunately the other players were all busy taking "real" disads, so it didn't become an equity issue.

 

 

bigdamnhero

"Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very sad life. Probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry."

[Just Joe]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I agree with with most of what's been posted here, but I have a thought about how homosexuality could play out a lot like a psych lim in some game worlds. Suppose you're playing a closeted gay character in a game world where being gay is a substantial social limitation. If the character never acts gay in any way (e.g., dates only people of the opposite sex), then the limitation might not be worth any points. (It might stink for the character, but would not effect actual in-game actions). But if the character does not completely suppress his or her homosexuality, then the limitation becomes more significant. Arguably, when trying to hide signs of being gay, an ego roll might be appropriate. Even if an actual roll is not made, it could play out like a psych lim that is role-played with no ego roll actually being made: it is in the character's nature to react in such-and-such a manner, but the character tries to resist doing so because doing so can have bad consequences. And the moderate/strong/total distinctions have some applicability here. The "totally" limited character is (almost) completely unwilling or unable to hide her or his sexual orientation (a major disadvantage in some times and places). The "moderately" limited character suffers a relatively small limitation (in terms of points), even in some oppressive game worlds. The "strongly" limited character is somewhere in between.

 

Whaddaya think?

[Steve]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I just want to say thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread.

 

My original reason for my questions on this matter has to do with my recent character posting of White Phoenix, a teenaged martial artist character that combines aspects of Ranma 1/2, Captain Marvel/Shazam, and Peter Parker/Spider-Man. The character has two limitations that I thought were appropriate: Uncertain Gender Identity (15 point Psych) and Harmful Secret (girl who is really a boy, 5 points). White Phoenix is 16 years old at this time, a boy who is able to physically transform into an attractive girl, a kung fu fighter straight out of a video game. I am currently working on an adult version of the character, one who has been living with this ability for 3-4 years, and I am trying to work through what his/her personality would be like after going through puberty and entering young adulthood able to experience life as either gender.

 

All your comments have been very helpful.

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Back in the days of Champions I, II, & III I had a character with a very high libido. I played the character in two very different campaigns, using the vision in my head. He didn't have any psych or social limitations based on his sexual proclivity and both GMs handled this differenty.

 

In the furst game sexual situations were pretty much non-existant. I don't think the GM felt comfortable dealing with them.

 

In the second game the characters sexual inclinations became a focal point of the champain when he became sexually infolved with two of his female teammates and several of the villainesses. At one point he was captured by the evil fem group and the only thing that saved him from death was his relationship with 3 of the group.

 

At no time did I recieve p[oints for something I didn't think was worth points, but in retrospect my actions should have been worth something since it did have some serious ramifications on the game world later in the campaign.

 

As to the issue of sexual orientation, any points gained because of a disad should be based on the activities of the character. It's one thing to be lecherous, it's another to allow your villainous paramore to escape the scene of the crime after you have stopped him or her from robbing a museum. Aint love grand? =^.^=

[Mike W]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I don't think that sexual orientation is worth a Psych Lim, but it might be a Social Limit based on the society you're playing in. If you're playing in a society that harshly discriminates against or punishes people of a particular sexual orientation then it might be worth something as a Social Limitation.

[McCoy]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I just want to say thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread.

You're welcome. Glad we could help.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Or' date=' to twist OddHat's example: if Jack Hero is gay, but he's in a committed relationship with [u']Lady[/u] Justice... now that's gotta be worth a few points.

I'd say it's these kinds of situations which are the Psych Lims (depending on whether and how often they affect play). The most obvious one, which I thought of immediately on reading the first post was where Jack Hero (gay) is in love with Captian Justice (straight). You take the basic unrequited love disad, and add the additional frustration and complication of differing orientations. This has a different effect depending on whether Captain Justice is aware that Jack is gay, or whether Jack is publicly known to be gay*, or perhaps Cap even is aware of Jack's feelings.

 

*At some point this might even become a psych lim or social lim for the Captain. "He and Jack are always partners in fighting crime. Jack is gay. Maybe Capt. Justice is too?" or "I respect him as a fellow crime fighter and he's a good friend, and he's saved my life many times, but I can never return the love he feels for me." etc.

 

But then again, nevermind. Is this really going to affect the game enough to be worth points? Are we playing Soap HERO? Chick-Flick HERO?

[OddHat]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Is this really going to affect the game enough to be worth points? Are we playing Soap HERO? Chick-Flick HERO?

 

This may be a better question than you'd think. Almost all of my campaigns have a soap opera element to them; in those campaigns, "In Unrequited Love With X" would be a valid disad. It would likely come up in play regularly, and might even be something I'd hang an adventure on. In a campaign with minimal or no soap opera elements, the disad would probably be worthless.

[nexus]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Don't think even the "lecherous" or "flirtatious" limits have been used in my campaigns. Generally those are more like character traits than limitations.

 

Superman doesn't flirt. I'm not sure someone who does should get points for it.

 

But back to topic, no. The *only* way this is a psych limit in my game is if the population is vastly disproportionate; If you're male and attracted to men, and there are only a couple of you left on earth, but there are loads of women, yeh that would be a problem.

 

I've had lecherous or Flirtacious used in my games. I run them as the character's lechery as such he/she makes unwise choices, hits on the wrong time/place and is very easily seduced and tricked into doing things by the promise of sex.

[OddHat]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I've had lecherous or Flirtacious used in my games. I run them as the character's lechery as such he/she makes unwise choices' date=' hits on the wrong time/place and is very easily seduced and tricked into doing things by the promise of sex.[/quote']

 

Yup. A big part of Flesh Gordon's schtick is that he will make very foolish decisions when faced with a decent looking villainess, heroine, or damsel in apparent distress. It makes the character more fun in play.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I've got a Hedonistic character who also does some very stupid things in the name of Fun and Never Done That! Those types of Disads, if played properly, can be very interesting in game.

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

And don't forget that some players like to delve into social issues and live for drama. Just because you don't doesn't mean somefur else doesn't live for it.

 

If you use these kinds of hooks in your game you might discover an aspect of the game beyond 'beating up the bad guys'.

 

So talk to your players and find out if they want to before you rule it out.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Interesting topic. My (rather generic) take on it is that practically ANYTHING can be a disadvantage if it controls your PC's actions in some way, so being gay might be a disadvantage for one character (especially if they are married with kids and in denial they can't quite deny) but a source of strength for another character comfortable with their gender preference choices. I think the only way to look at this is to ask the question: what game effect is it going to have - will the character suffer compulsion/loss of respect/embarassment/some other effect, how often and how much of a problem is that going to be in game.

 

I mean if Captain Wonderful is in the closet but all that ever happens is he secretly admired the cut of The Swashbuckler's gib then probably not worth much. OTOH if he has a hunted who might (somehow) find out about his sexual preferences AND the GM wants to have the populace react negatively it could be worth a lot more.

 

OK, not helpful, really: how much of an issue to you want it to be? Assign points appropriately. On the face of it it doesn't seem to me any more of a disadvantage than defining your character as heterosexual, unless they are pro-actively and annoyingly so.

 

I also tend to allow disadvantages that might not have a direct in-game effect but ARE going to take up some of the PCs run-time. It is something more of an art than a science assigning disadvantage values to that though....

[Beetle]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I probably would Max it out to 10 points for openly Gay' date=' 15 for being in the closet. Like public ID and Secret ID.[/quote']I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled, denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled' date=' denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?[/quote']

If he's "in the closet" for whatever reason he would believe that "coming out" would be even more damaging than actually being gay.

 

And there's suddenly the danger that any and all social interactions and networking the character may have done with immediately be null and void.

 

And of course a possible "media circus" and anything else that might go with the world's perception of you suddnely and sharply altering itself.

 

Being "open" about has a certain level of "been there done that" and/or "I can take what you can throw" mentality to it.

[OddHat]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled' date=' denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?[/quote']

 

IMO the Public vs Secret ID model works well for this. A gay man (or lesbian woman) in the closet can have their whole life disrupted if they get outed. The character must constantly try to hide the fact that he or she isn't straight. Being outed can mean divorce, job loss, loss of friends, alienation from family, etc, and then the character must deal with continued discrimination after the secret is revealed. An out gay man or lesbian woman has already been through that; his or her social status and relationships have already stood up to the test of coming out, and there's no need to try to hide a significant part of his or her life.

 

In your own campaign you could switch them, but then it would probably be best to switch public and secret ID as well.

[McCoy]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled' date=' denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?[/quote']

What ghost-angel and OddHat said. Plus those without secrets are immune to blackmail. I think that leading the double life is more stressful than any persicution from being openly Gay.

 

No, I KNOW that, for me, leading the double life was more stressful than any persicution from being openly Gay.

 

YMMV, but from my life expierence being in the closet was more of a disadvantage.

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

What if the character has homosexual tendencies but never acts on them? The only way being a closeted gay would be a disad is if they are in secret relationships. Then they have something to be outed for.

 

If you are physically attracted to farm animals but never act on this desire you can't have villains show up with blackmail photos. So having said attraction to sheep isn't a disadvantage.

 

But if Captain Heroic and Mr Toughguy are having a secret love afair then there is the chance of something going wrong and photos of them in flagrante dilecto just might show up in the Weekly World News and is worth points.

[McCoy]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

What if the character has homosexual tendencies but never acts on them?

Never?

 

Never surfed a Gay web site?

 

Never let their eyes linger a fraction of a second too long in the shower at the gym?

 

Never subscribed to more than three bodybuilder magizines?

 

Never realized they can lip sync the Cowardly Lion's part in The Wizard of Oz?

 

Never busted a move on the dance floor to I Will Survive or It's Raining Men?

 

Never planned a summer vacation around following the road company of The Lion King on Ice from city to city?

 

Never TiVo'ed all the Steve Reeves gladiator movies?

 

Never set foot in Greenwich Village, the Vieux Carre, the city of Chicago or the state of California?

[Mister E]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Are we talking about Aquaman?

 

Yeah, treating homosexuality as a Psych Lim isn't right, unless billed as some kind of mania. For instance: if James Bond was gay, I'd totally write it up as a Psych Lim that villains could take advantage of. Not a big Limitation, but maybe an EGO +5 Roll. He has a reputation to maintain, but he's not totally man-crazy.

 

As a Social Limitation, it makes perfect sense; but only for a Character that was a priest; in the military; or otherwise needed to keep it a secret... and that's not what we're talking about.

 

We're talking about Aquaman.

 

 

~ Mister E

 

[OddHat]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Are we talking about Aquaman?

 

 

If Aquaman were gay, he'd have noticed every detail of her costume. Especially the handbag and shoes.

 

Aquaman's just repressed.