Quote from: Pierce InverarityThis may well work now in 4E, but it's interesting to see that GURPS has its own set of quirks. I used to assume it was this paragon of bland but perfect rationality, but to my uneducated mind SJ seems to love TFT too dearly to ditch that two-stats-only mechanic.

Actually reading and playing a system allows your criticisms to be relevant and founded; having neither read it nor played it will obviously lead to funny colnclusions about it. There's a lot to criticise in GURPS, having just two attributes isn't among it. It has effectively six stats, and an intelligent GM will ensure they're all relevant in play.

You have GURPS players and GMs telling you, "it has six stats" and yet you insist that it actually has two. You know, you're under no obligation to try every game out there, or even any game. If you don't like the look of it, just don't play it. We don't care, really. But if you're going to critique it, base those critiques on reality, not fantasy. Criticising GURPS 4e for having two stats is like criticising it for being written in Swahili. It's simply not true.

It's quite alright just to say, "I don't like it" and give no rational reason for it. No-one sane cares. No need to make bullshit up.

Quote from: jhkimI've had some experience with 4E since then, though not a lot.  Still, my impression is while the problem was reduced by some of the new options, the underlying issue that Pierce mentioned is still there to some degree.  Details of my review will no longer apply under 4th ed GURPS, but we can still discuss the general point.  

What is your experience with 4e, because I really have to disagree with you here.  I think the problem is GONE in 4th and I don't think we can continue to discuss the general point. This whole thread seems to be tainted with the problems of 3rd that no longer apply to 4th.  It has been my experience that specialization is encouraged in 4th and works extremely well.  One of the main design goals with 4th was to address the problem of people taking high DX and IQ and being good at everything.  I believe they have succeeded in doing this.  The only "underlying issue" is people who only have experience with 3rd edition applying it mistakenly to 4th.

I apologize if that comes off as harsh, but I keep seeing this misconception come up, especially on this site, despite people like Kyle and Koltar who have been very clear about it (with evidence based on play experience and a thorough knowledge of the rules).  

Pierce, I suggest you find a review of 4th edition.

Quote from: Kyle AaronActually reading and playing a system allows your criticisms to be relevant and founded; having neither read it nor played it will obviously lead to funny colnclusions about it. There's a lot to criticise in GURPS, having just two attributes isn't among it. It has effectively six stats, and an intelligent GM will ensure they're all relevant in play.

What he said.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou have GURPS players and GMs telling you, "it has six stats" and yet you insist that it actually has two. You know, you're under no obligation to try every game out there, or even any game. If you don't like the look of it, just don't play it. We don't care, really. But if you're going to critique it, base those critiques on reality, not fantasy. Criticising GURPS 4e for having two stats is like criticising it for being written in Swahili. It's simply not true.

What he said again.

You are being told the truth here people.  We are appreciators of GURPS but not rabid fanboys. There are things to criticize about the system (overland walking rates, anyone?) but this is not one of them.

Build a few characters.  You'll see.  My players spend a lot of time agonizing over their skill choices and they rarely overlap.

Well, this has been a useful thread for me. I just regret that I already have 3e plus a number of sourcebooks which cover the kinds of stuff I'd be most interested in doing with GURPS. So I'm torn between getting the two 4e books vs. just trying to incorporate Lite vs. picking up the 3e Companions.

Me too, El. Contrary to what above personages think, I'm not a GURPS hater at all. I'm curious about the game and was irritated by 4E Lite.

The thing is that since 4ELite treats the game as dual-statted only, one would have to plunk down 50 bucks on amazon in order to get the real thing. Well, or getting those companions.

GURPS Lite is GURPS Shite. But I think that's true of most "lite" versions of relatively complex rpg systems.

If you do enjoy a game with oodles of options and a deal of complexity which allows for players to have those arguments they love, "a big dumb fighter will beat a dextrous one any day!", then you'll enjoy GURPS.

If you felt that GURPS 3e was basically good, but that the various optional rules in the sourcebooks and companions made it a bit of a spaghetti mess of rules, and that too much weight was put on DX and IQ, then you'll like GURPS 4e, which is a streamlined version - all the same options are there, but in one book instead of twenty - and where six stats are important, not two.

If you're going to run or play it, fifty bucks for all that enjoyment isn't a big deal. Here they're A$55 or so each; by comparison, a pizza is $10, a bag of chips for the evening is $2.50, a bottle of coke is $3, a train ticket around the city is about $3.50, and so on. So if you play at least 10 sessions, you'll spend far more on transport to the session and munchies for it than you do on the books. And really, even if the books were free, you'd want more than 10 sessions of play out of them just for the effort of learning the rules, explaining them to other players, planning a character or campaign, etc.

Quote from: walkerpWhat is your experience with 4e, because I really have to disagree with you here.  I think the problem is GONE in 4th and I don't think we can continue to discuss the general point. This whole thread seems to be tainted with the problems of 3rd that no longer apply to 4th.  It has been my experience that specialization is encouraged in 4th and works extremely well.  One of the main design goals with 4th was to address the problem of people taking high DX and IQ and being good at everything.  I believe they have succeeded in doing this.

I've played about a dozen sessions of GURPS 4E -- six in a Supers game, three in a GURPS Traveller game, and three in a Fantasy game.  I borrowed other people's books for these games.  Since I didn't really like 3rd edition mechanics, and wasn't particularly taken by 4th, I did not invest the considerable expense and time in it.  

It is possible that I missed things in my readings, but I've heard similar arguments against my conclusions about 3rd edition, which I'm quite solid on.  Hence, I wanted to discuss things.  

If you acknowledge the problem in 3rd, but believe it fixed in 4th, what are the specific changes that you think contribute to this?  Specifically, what specializations do you think are supported?

GURPS Martial Arts gives so many options for fighters makes specialization almost mandatory. Not just the karate guys but the regular sword and board western European style fighter. For the first time in a RPG I feel playing a fighter is as interesting rules-wise as  playing a mage.

A friend of mine who is 1/2 mage and 1/2 fighter was lamenting about he doesn't have enough points to get everything he wants.

The only problem area I seen so far is high magery like 10 levels and 1 point spells. The Rule of 16 helps.

Quote from: jhkimIf you acknowledge the problem in 3rd, but believe it fixed in 4th, what are the specific changes that you think contribute to this?  Specifically, what specializations do you think are supported?

I think 3e had problems, but what exactly those were are irrelevant now because we have 4e, it's a meaningless academic discussion.

I assume you mean the "only DX and IQ matter" problem.

It was fixed in 4e in four ways.

• by making DX and IQ cost 20/level compared to 10/level for ST and HT or 5/level for Will and Per,
• by having many important skills based on Will and Per
• by advising that there are times when a skill normally based on X should isntead for this roll be based on Y
• by noting that skill defaults aren't automatic - defaults available deend on cultural background

Bearing in mind that each player has a limited pool of points to spend on their character, and a smaller pool of points to spend between sessions, the first fix puts definite limits on the IQ or DX characters will have. In play, players roll against skills and only rarely against attributes, so the player will be aiming to have Broadsword - 12 or Fireball - 15 or whatever, rather than DX 12 and IQ 17. If you have for example more than five average skills at IQ/DX+2 [4], then it's more cost-effective to raise IQ/DX than those skills individually. However, in practice you'll find that your character uses just a couple of those in the difficult situations requiring very high (16+) skill levels, while the others can afford to be lower, so that putting your points into skills is encouraged at character generation, and in between sessions, well if you're getting 2-5CP per session, you're not going to save up 20 to get some benefit in 4-10 sessions (4 real weeks to a year, dependeing on frequency of play) when you can have a benefit now by boosting some skill.

Having the skills which depend on Will and Per encourages specialisation there. Taking your critique from 3e,

Quote from: John KimFor example, suppose a PC group has a sage has a 16 IQ but no outdoor skills of any type, and ranger who has 10 IQ and 8 points in tracking and lots of other outdoor skills. For just 1/2 point, the sage can get "Tracking" skill better than the ranger.

First we have to up the 1/2 point to 1, since 1 is the minimum now. Next,

Sage, IQ 16 [120], Tracking (A) Per-1 [1] - 15
Ranger IQ 10

• , Tracking (A) Per+2 [8] - 12

But note that the sage is a 121 CP character so far, and the ranger an 8CP character. It's thus not surprising that the 121CP sage can do stuff better than the 8CP ranger, that's part of the system's design, that higher CP total reflects overall better capability. But let's look at giving the ranger even a quarter to a third as many CP.

Sage, IQ 16 [120], Per 16

• , Tracking (A) Per-1 [1] - 15 = [121]

Ranger IQ 10

• , Per 16 [30], Tracking (A) Per+2 [8] - 20 = [38]

The ranger is now much better at Tracking than the sage. And if we up the ranger's CP to 121, we'll find that they can get quite a wide variety of skills in the ranger area. Another 83CP will buy a lot of skills. So your example simply doesn't hold up as a critique in GURPS 4e. Attribute-focused characters aren't always better than skills-focused characters, given that they're built on the same points.

So you see that remembering that the characters in a party are built on limited points, and in a game group will have the same CP totals, the specialist in X may if they try hard enough beat a specialist in Y at some skill, but the specialist in Y will overall do better. A ranger does more than Tracking.

The second, third and fourth points will also discourage just buying up high attributes because there'll be times when a high IQ or high DX are useless, some other attribute or a skill is important instead.

Every specialisation is supported in GURPS 4e, but whether it's supported by the GM is another matter. In a game where the GM never asked for rolls against Observation, Scrounging, Survival, Navigation, Naturalist and so on, but did ask for Tracking rolls and History and Biology and Egyptology, the ranger specialisation would be poorly-supported, and the sage specialisation well-supported. But that is not the fault of the rules.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI think 3e had problems, but what exactly those were are irrelevant now because we have 4e, it's a meaningless academic discussion.

I assume you mean the "only DX and IQ matter" problem.

It was fixed in 4e in four ways.

• by making DX and IQ cost 20/level compared to 10/level for ST and HT or 5/level for Will and Per,
• by having many important skills based on Will and Per
• by advising that there are times when a skill normally based on X should isntead for this roll be based on Y
• by noting that skill defaults aren't automatic - defaults available deend on cultural background

Bearing in mind that each player has a limited pool of points to spend on their character, and a smaller pool of points to spend between sessions, the first fix puts definite limits on the IQ or DX characters will have.

I was aware of all of these.  I feel that this cuts back some the most extreme cases of 3e characters, and it weakens the issue -- but the point is still there.  Compared to many other games, there are two notable features:

• There is very low buy-in for skills (1 point out of over 100).  
• Buying up all mental aspects (i.e. increased IQ) is a very worthwhile package deal compared to buying up multiple skills and/or sub-stats.  Other games often have separate stats for perception, willpower, intellectual ability, social ability, and/or magical ability.

The first of these is addressed to a fair degree by removing half-point skills and limiting defaults, but it is still cheap compared to most other systems.  For example, in the HERO system, it is 3 points out of a similar total (100-150) to get a stat-based roll in most skills (2pts for background skills like Knowledges or Sciences).  Other systems may have 1 point minimum out of a smaller point total.  

The issue isn't simply that only IQ and DX matter, but that IQ/DX matter more than any other part of the concept.  i.e. What is important about a sage character isn't his concept as a scholar, but rather his high IQ.  There is little protection for different niches within the mental abilities (i.e. nuclear physicist vs archeologist vs poet vs diplomat) or within physical abilities (i.e. ranger vs dancer vs thief).  With a long list and low buy-in, players are more likely to "cherry pick" the most useful skills for the campaign rather than concentrating on logically related skills.  

For example, if I have a city-bred high IQ sage as my PC, it is pretty tempting after the first long quest to put 1 point into a few useful skills outside my initial concept -- like Tracking or Survival.  It seems justified since I have now been adventuring in the wilderness.  But with just a bit of that, the niches between character types quickly break down.  

Other systems typically deal with this by having broader skills, higher buy-in cost, and/or more attractive incentives to take grouped skills.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronEvery specialisation is supported in GURPS 4e, but whether it's supported by the GM is another matter. In a game where the GM never asked for rolls against Observation, Scrounging, Survival, Navigation, Naturalist and so on, but did ask for Tracking rolls and History and Biology and Egyptology, the ranger specialisation would be poorly-supported, and the sage specialisation well-supported. But that is not the fault of the rules.

Under this logic, it is possible to justify any cost scheme by faulting the GM.  i.e. If flame resistance costs a huge amount, and a player takes it, the GM can balance it by constantly throwing flame attacks at the PCs.  

However, the question is what is natural for most GMs.  I think that in practice for a given campaign, certain skills are going to be more important than other skills.  That means that it is natural and reasonable for PCs to buy into those skills.  I don't think this is inherently bad GMing, since under some systems it wouldn't be a significant issue.

Quote from: jhkimThere is very low buy-in for skills (1 point out of over 100).  

That depends on the CP total the GM starts the PCs on, and the Disadvantage limit. Some campaigns I've run or seen included,

• 30CP characters with up to -30 Disadvantages, and -5 Quirks, leading to +65CP to spend on useful stuff
• 50CP characters with up to -30 Disadvantages, and -5 Quirks, leading to +85CP to spend on useful stuff
• 100CP characters with no Disadvantage limit, so that some players chose -20 Disadvantages, while one chose -100 Disadvantage

These led to very different kinds of characters, in the last case very different ones within the same campaign. You can't make a general rule about "1 point out of over 100" because there's no such rule, neither in the book nor in play across many campaigns.

In general what we find is that at low (0-75) CP totals, players choose a lot of skills; at high (150+) CP totals, they choose a lot of attributes. In the mid-range is where players will argue with each-other which is best, and where having -50 of Disadvantages to get you useful stuff rather than -10 makes a big difference.

Quote from: jhkimBuying up all mental aspects (i.e. increased IQ) is a very worthwhile package deal compared to buying up multiple skills and/or sub-stats.  Other games often have separate stats for perception, willpower, intellectual ability, social ability, and/or magical ability.

You seem to have forgotten that the system has not only attributes and skills, but also Dis/Advantages, which cover the things you mention. It's possible to be a Will 20 character who's a coward - so they'll stand up to any social confrontation, but no physical ones. Magical ability is an Advantage costing varying CP depending on how good it is and how wide the range, etc.

Quote from: jhkimOther systems may have 1 point minimum out of a smaller point total.  

Again, the point total is nowhere advised or mandated in the rules, but depends on the particular campaign. 3e and earlier recommended 100CP characters, 4e doesn't.

In addition, the GMing chapter gives advice about character creation, and mentioning "character-design problems" in "high-powered campaigns", by which they mean characters designed on 200+CP. It says,

Quote from: GURPS 4eSome players spend lots of points in one area, resulting in abusive levels of ability. Others use their ample points to prepare for almost every conceivable situation, thereby poaching on the territory of more focused PCs [...]

They suggest many fixes, including, "limit attribute levels [...] or on total points allowed in attributes."

And next, "Emphasize the value of relative skill level." It seems to be something you've not grasped, jhkim, even though I've mentioned it several times - sometimes your skill will be based on different attributes. Of course, if the GM never does that then particular attributes will be of exagerrated importance, but that's like saying that "oh the GM never asks us for social skill rolls, we just have to roleplay it, so the social skills are useless, this system is stupid" - the system isn't responsible for GMs and players ignoring large chunks of it.

Another aspect to our busy sage learning Tracking skill is - how did he learn it? Surely he did not learn it in his study. Did the ranger agree to teach him? More from the GMing chapter,

Quote from: GURPS 4eGiven the chance, some players will spend points without regard for their characters' origins and stated goals [...]

Discuss all improvements. Don't just let players buy whatever they want - ask them to explain why, especially if they wish to increase attributes. [...]

Keep awards small enough that players must think about their purchases. [...]

Don't make it too easy to learn new skills. If you et the PCs learn skills whenever they have enough points, their skill lists will eventually grow indinstinguishable from one another. [...]

Give awards other than points. [...] Patrons, Rank, Reputation, Status, Wealth, etc.

Of course you may argue that a system should deal with all possible abuses, rather than simply having GM advice to deal with the abuses, but that is like saying that my circular saw should physically prevent itself from cutting off my finger, rather than putting on a guard which will deal with all but the most deliberate self-injury, and the instruction book warning me to be careful. If a tool's at all useful, it will have some dangers. Its design can minimise but not eliminate those dangers, in the end it comes down to the common sense of the user, complemented by advice from the designer of the tool.

Quote from: jhkmimThere is little protection for different niches within the mental abilities (i.e. nuclear physicist vs archeologist vs poet vs diplomat) or within physical abilities (i.e. ranger vs dancer vs thief).  With a long list and low buy-in, players are more likely to "cherry pick" the most useful skills for the campaign rather than concentrating on logically related skills.  

Again there's the issue of GM approval of these ridiculous characters. But even if they pass muster somehow, there's Dis/Advantages again. There exist in 4e various Advantages that can make a big difference to a specialist while being cheaper than high IQ/DX.

For example, we have Flexibility [5], which gives +3 on Climbing, Escape and Erotic Art, and alows you to ignore up to -3 in penalties for working in close quarters (for example under a car).

There's High Manual Dexterity [5/level] which gives +1 t DX for all tasks that require a delicate touch, which includes all DX-based rolls (that relative skill level again!) against Artist, Jeweler, Knot-Tying, Leatherworking, Lockpicking, Pickpocket, Sewing, Sleight of Hnad, and Surgery, as well as DX-based rolls to do fine work with Machinist or Mechanic. So your clockmaker or thief or finework artisan could get +1 from DX for 20CP, or +1 from this trait for 5CP and 15 left over for other stuff, or even +4 for the same 20CP.

We have Talents, which you can buy in levels, and give +1 to a group of skills, and +1 to reaction rolls for people in similar professions. An Animal Friend [5/level] gets to be helped in Animal Handing, Falconry, Packing, Riding, Teamster and Veterinary. Sure the sage can do well at many of those with his IQ 16 [120], but the Animal Friend with IQ 10

• can get +6 to all those skills for 30CP giving an effective IQ of 16 for those particular skills, be well-liked by all animals (+6 to reaction rolls from them), and have 90CP left over for other stuff.

Quote from: jhkimFor example, if I have a city-bred high IQ sage as my PC, it is pretty tempting after the first long quest to put 1 point into a few useful skills outside my initial concept -- like Tracking or Survival.  It seems justified since I have now been adventuring in the wilderness.  But with just a bit of that, the niches between character types quickly break down.  

Learning new skills is not automatic in the RAW (rules as written). You need to have a teacher, or for "quick learning under pressure" to have succeeded in a roll against them at their default level, and to have succeeded on an IQ roll after the adventure. And you need points spare, either CP awarded by the GM - and most GURPS GMs seem to award 2-3 per session - or else be able to spend 200 hours per CP being instructed, or 400 hours per CP doing private study.

As GM, my question to the ranger would be, "are you teaching the sage Tracking or Survival?" If the answer's "no", sage-boy is going to have a harder time learning them, the IQ roll won't be a problem but the original default roll will. But whatever the answer, I would say, "why does the sage want these skills? What's wrong with the ranger doing them? What kind of a sage grubs about in the dirt looking for roots and herbs to eat, or sets up the camp for the night? Shouldn't he be concentrating on his real studies, thinking about myths and legends as you walk along in the wilderness, while the ranger gets dirty?"

Again, this is the stuff that GM advice is made of, and as I noted before, we do indeed find it in GURPS 4e.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, the question is what is natural for most GMs.  I think that in practice for a given campaign, certain skills are going to be more important than other skills.  That means that it is natural and reasonable for PCs to buy into those skills.  I don't think this is inherently bad GMing, since under some systems it wouldn't be a significant issue.

A given campaign will have certain skills be more important, yes. But a good GM will design the campaign to make every PCs' abilities useful at some point, and good players will design their characters to have appropriate skills. If the GM tells you that this will be a postapocalyptic campaign in which all electronics has burned out, and then you design a character with 50CP in computer-related stuff, then we have a problem. The campaign or the character, or a bit of both, have to change.

If the sage's player is sitting there being a spare one, and the ranger's player is making fifty dice rolls a session, then of course the sage's player is going to want to give him some Tracking. But if the sage's player and ranger's player both get to use their abilities, they'll focus on improving them.

A good campaign design, and good GMing in play, will ensure that the broad range of abilities present in the party are useful; good character design will ensure they fit the campaign. If the sage's knowledge proves to be vital in several sessions, and the ranger's knowledge vital, too, then the player of each will be content to focus in the areas they're already good in. Let each PC shine in their own way, and then they won't try to shine in the other PCs' ways.

In summary, by looking at the whole of GURPS 4e as a system, remembering not only attributes and skills but also the Dis/Advantages, we find that specialised characters are well-supported in play, provided the GM also supports that specialisation by making it useful in the game session. While abuses and warped characters are quite possible, the GMing advice chapter in combination with many of the rules more than make up for this.

Any investment in new skills comes only after default use of or significant time spent in the game actually learning it. Only as an optional rule can characters just spend earned points on any new skills.

Tightly related skills default to each other, a player would have a greater opportunity to learn those skills that can be used as defaults of skills he already has.

There are advantages that some skills require, encouraging characters to concentrate on learning and improving related skills.

Skills in GURPS are not the only mechanism for niche protection. Advantages and disadvantages are the greater tool of niche protection in GURPS. For instance, using the default magic system, in normal mana worlds, only mages can cast spells, even though anybody 'could' learn spells.

Other ads/disads could be built depending on the campaign that would provide other kinds of niche protection, if that is important. I know that seems like a cop out, relying on GM Fiat, but it isn't. In a system that supports lots of different kinds of genres, the niche's could be radically different and defined only at a campaigns inception or conception. So the base rules don't instill or force these, the campaign should.

Well, I think John is making some good points here, especially given the level of effort I'd be willing to put in, either as a player or as a GM, in ensuring that a character build makes sense and includes all the skills that ought to be there. I remember toying with a method in GURPS to buy skills up from their defaults from related skills, but I had trouble getting the math to work right. FATE has a simple approach with its skill pyramid system. I think I'll start a new thread on this.

Quote from: darOther ads/disads could be built depending on the campaign that would provide other kinds of niche protection, if that is important. I know that seems like a cop out, relying on GM Fiat, but it isn't. In a system that supports lots of different kinds of genres, the niche's could be radically different and defined only at a campaigns inception or conception. So the base rules don't instill or force these, the campaign should.

I think it is a cop-out.  There are plenty of other rules that support specific genres in GURPS -- the fact that there are infinite possibilities to cover shouldn't preclude you from covering the common basics.  Many campaigns will want some sort of niche protection, grouping together related skills.  I think a more reasonable design would be to make a default niche protection, and a given campaign can always house-rule the default in order to change the niches.  

3rd edition had plenty of ostensibly "niche" advantages as well, but they were rarely worth it compared to basic DX and IQ.  i.e. Flexibility, or High Manual Dexterity.  From what I have seen of 4th, that is equally true -- they simply aren't worth it.  Indeed, a number of niches got more expensive under 4th edition.  For example, I wanted a musically talented starship captain in my GURPS Traveller game as a bit of color, but under 4th edition the cost of this was raised dramatically to be 5 points per +1.  

Kyle goes on about how you have to stomp on those dirty power-gaming players who put too many points into attributes instead of these good, flavorful advantages.  I don't deny that there are power-gamers whom you might not like.  However, the fact that they suggest setting limits on points on attributes suggests to me that they are still too good for their cost.  

I think it's reasonable to not worry about power-gaming loopholes like someone who combines Lightning Bolt with the Self-Only limitation with Absorbtion (Electricity Only).  However, when the terrible munchkin idea that has to be stomped on is "I want my character to be really smart" -- then maybe the system has something to do with it.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronA given campaign will have certain skills be more important, yes. But a good GM will design the campaign to make every PCs' abilities useful at some point, and good players will design their characters to have appropriate skills. If the GM tells you that this will be a postapocalyptic campaign in which all electronics has burned out, and then you design a character with 50CP in computer-related stuff, then we have a problem. The campaign or the character, or a bit of both, have to change.

If the sage's player is sitting there being a spare one, and the ranger's player is making fifty dice rolls a session, then of course the sage's player is going to want to give him some Tracking. But if the sage's player and ranger's player both get to use their abilities, they'll focus on improving them.

No, they're not.  Most often, they're going to spend on what gains them the most benefit.  And most times that's perfectly reasonable in-character.  Raising their existing skills is not necessarily what will gain them the most benefit.  Because of the exponential cost (1-2-4-8), buying up existing skills is often pretty inefficient.  i.e. Compared to getting +1 in your good 4pt skill, you could get 4 new skills.  

So suppose we have a cat-burglar character with a high DX and a bunch of purely thieving skills -- not an unreasonable concept.  With 4 XP, she could get +1 to her Stealth, or she could take some combat skills like Broadsword and Shield and Fast-Draw which would be greatly useful to her when the party gets into a fight -- as it has a number of times thus far.  

Similarly, if the party is hunting down fugitives and there is a lot of tracking going on, it would be very attractive for the sage to spend 1 point on Tracking and thus give the party an extra chance to stay on the trail if the Ranger fails.  This is true even if he is getting good use out of his ability to research the fugitive's background.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, when the terrible munchkin idea that has to be stomped on is "I want my character to be really smart" -- then maybe the system has something to do with it.  

That 'really smart' will be expensive, precluding being highly trained or experienced in skills having fewer points to spend on them. A character that isn't 'really smart' but spent more points on the same skills would end up with the same overall level but be more highly trained/experienced. That character will have an advantage, when it comes to those skills. No GM fiat. It is built into the rules.

Edit: trying to be more polite.