Quote from: jhkimAlso, you should make clear that you were quoting my review of 3rd edition GURPS.

What part of "Originally Posted by jhkim, in his review of GURPS 3e" was unclear? It was in bold and everything.

Quote from: jhkimLet's make this as clear as possible: You don't need to be better than a specialist at all skills of his specialty for niche protection to be an issue.

Bullshit.

If you believe that, go back to AD&D1e with character classes and no chance at cross-abilities by banning multi-classing.

Quote from: jhkimIn GURPS, it is "trivially easy" to be better than someone else at one skill in their niche.  Some people don't like that feature of GURPS.  Different people will different feelings about how easy it should be for someone to put a toe in someone else's niche, and/or what constitutes a toe versus a foot.  However, I don't think one has to be an irrational wacko to dislike that feature.  

Yes, you have to be an irrational wacko to think that one skill is a big imposition on the other guy with the pile of skills. It'd be like me as a chef worried that because the kitchenhand can chop onions, I might lose my job. It's ridiculous.

Quote from: jhkimSpending 10 pts got you a lot less than half of what +1 IQ got you.  

If we're talking about characters have niches, areas of focus in their abilities, then that IQ for 20 can add to 100 skills, and a Talent for 10 adds to 12 skills only, it doesn't matter to you - you're only interested in those 12 skills plus a few others. Sure, IQ can help with 100 skills. But you don't have 100 skills, you're not going to roll for 100 skills. Just the dozen niche-specific skills, and another dozen to round them out. So then the 10 point Talent looks pretty bloody good.

Quote from: jhkimWithin your last PC party, how many points were spent on DX+IQ versus how many points on talent advantages?  [...] Do you find in practice that players take them instead of DX/IQ?

I begin players with 50CP characters, in general. I find that they spend 20-40CP on Attributes, and about 20CP on traits which can affect skills, like Flexibility, Talents, and so on. They spend another 20CP on Advantages which have non-skill effects, like Hard to Kill, Attractive, Status and so on. I note again that you're ignoring the in-game importance of things other than skills and attributes.

I find that the unimaginative players choose high DX and/or IQ, but do very little with them in play. "I don't know what I want my character to be able to do... fuck it, I'll give them high DX/IQ." But at the 50CP power level, it doesn't help them much. Having IQ 12 [40] rather than IQ 10

• means they'll have default skill rolls of 7 or 8 rather than 5 or 6 - not much difference, really, unless you're rolling dice a zillion times a session.

The imaginative players decide what they want their character to be able to do, and focus selection of attributes, skills and dis/advantages on that.

So in the Roman Republic game we had a social guy, a fighting guy, and a healer. Each had relevant skills at 12-14, and some-other-niche's skills at 9 or so.

In First Tiwesdaeg (Dark Ages Englandish) game we had a fighter, a healer, a ranger and a non-focused character. The fighter ended up with a skill of 16, attacking with two weapons a turn, etc. The ranger ended up with high Perception, able to spot lots of things and so on.

In both cases, players pursued their own specialites and didn't worry about side stuff too much, and if someone else got a skill they had, it really didn't worry them. If the fighter had tried to be a ranger then she would have been less of a fighter, if the social guy had tried to be more of a fighter he would have been less social. That's the nature of a point-buy system.

Yes, it's trivially easy to have a single skill your niche better than that particular skill inside the other guy's niche - but most players won't bother, because they could spend those points on something else.

If the ranger has really good Tracking, why, oh why would the sage bother? He has sagey things to think about. Is it because he's worried the ranger might fail? Then the ranger can't be very bloody good. In any case, that could apply to any skill - so the sage ends up doing nothing but learning the skills of the rest of the party, and is no longer much of a sage, just a jack of all trades, master of none.

Is it because the GM keeps asking for Tracking rolls, and never anything else? Then the GM is an idiot, and should be removed by a bloodless coup. The deal in a sensible game is, "if I let you put it on your character sheet, then I will make sure it comes out in play - good or bad." That then is the real niche protection for PCs - a competent GM.

Quote from: jhkimMechanically, if you have five skills at the 8 point level, you can instead raise all your other skills by +1 as well as your Will and Perception for free.

Am I missing something?  How is paying 20 points for the IQ raise free?

Quote from: walkerpAm I missing something?  How is paying 20 points for the IQ raise free?

With +1 IQ, you can get the same level in those five skills (assuming they are mental) for only 4 points each.  Reducing those points would save you twenty points.  Under GURPS 3rd edition, I often noticed published characters who would cost less points if you increased their DX and/or IQ while keeping skills the same.  

To Kyle:

Our experiences differ regarding talents.  Being at a lower point scale does seem important.  As I noted, one of the two key causes was the low relative cost of buy-in, but the buy-in is significantly more if you have only half as many points.

Quote from: jhkimWith +1 IQ, you can get the same level in those five skills (assuming they are mental) for only 4 points each.  Reducing those points would save you twenty points.  Under GURPS 3rd edition, I often noticed published characters who would cost less points if you increased their DX and/or IQ while keeping skills the same.  

1) We're not talking about 3e.  You really need to drop those assumptions.
2) If you can wait long enough to save up 20 points, then go for it.
3) This is making a lot of assumptions about all those skills being under IQ and being skills that someone else has (the person whose niche you are targetting, I guess).
4) It's fewer.

...be a lot simpler if he just referred to 4th edition GURPS for all of the conversation...


- Ed C.

I don't know. Our group uses GURPS as our default system, and I can certainly sympathise with a lot of jhkim's criticisms. But then, I think that probably has a lot to do with the fact that we grew up with 3rd edition and played that incessantly for a decade or more before 4th edition came along. It's very hard to unlearn those lessons, and frankly, I'm still unconvinced that the changes made in 4E adequately address the problem.

Whilst floating skills are a nice idea, in reality, it doesn't happen often enough to make a sizeable difference, and neither do things like skill-investment only feints. Talents never see any action, since the cost differential between taking the talent and just upping the relevant attribute isn't sufficient. And I've never ever seen any GM use the training time rules.

Are our GMs all crap? Maybe so, though I'd suggest that we're probably average at worst. I can certainly imagine that there might be better GMs out there, but I would suggest they were actually good GMs, and a game should be designed to work for average groups, not just really good ones.

Oh, and I have to strongly disagree with the notion that players will invest in their strengths and specialities. In my experience, unless those strengths weren't really pronounced in the first place (eg skill levels below 15), players will always opt to shore up their weaknesses first and foremost, especially when that is usually cheaper and more cost-effective than augmenting existing strengths.