Quote from: Pat;1121350That's one of the things that makes point-build character creation difficult to balance across different scales. You end up with certain optimal mixes of skills and stats, meaning that for any particular point build IQ and DX will cluster around a certain level, and so will the levels of your skills. Which means characters like the Hulk will never appear, because after a certain point bumping up DX and spending the points on skills needed to turn him into a combat monster will provide more benefit than another minor incremental increase in strength. I've seen people argue that this is realistic, but it's really not. It's gamist.

Sure.

I think the more points are allowed and the more free they are to spend them on various things, the more possibilities there are for weird and/or munchkiny character designs, and the more the large availability of points can drown out interesting limits built into a point-buy system when there are fewer points to spend and more limits on how they can be spent.

However, many problems including that one can be avoided by having the people who pick and/or approve character traits be more interested in making interesting appropriate characters than in picking things for gamey efficiency.

In some cases, though, I think there are some clusters of stats that can also be realistic. For example, the stats of pro athletes in a sport probably tend to cluster into certain ranges, which is a natural effect of the limits of intentional training for the role, and people selecting and being selected for roles that suit their natural gifts.

Quote from: Pat;1121350I never played HERO, but as I understand they have an interesting approach: There's a cap on the total power plus the total skill of an attack, so you can choose to be really powerful, or really accurate, but not both.

What I've done since some time in the 90's is offer not just a pile of points, but a variety of choices for packages which have different point totals and different things people can spend them on up to different limits. Like GURPS Templates, but I may offer different options which may allow different point totals too, because I don't think GURPS character point total equality means much at all for characters with different sorts of traits.

I don't tend to usually offer large amounts of points, especially not to pick freely, nor do I play superheroes games, but if I wanted to support something The Hulk (or more likely for me, something like The Mountain from GoT), I'd offer a package that includes the huge size and strength and perhaps prices it on a different scale if there are points that could be traded to other traits. I mean, if you're trying to model Bruce Banner, it'd make sense to have them make an ordinary scientist using a template that has to include Bruce Banner's skills, and then apply the effects that made him the Hulk on top of that, so there would be no question of trading some of the Hulk effect to amp up other aspects of the pre-Hulk character to try to min/max a more efficient character - that'd be gamist, as you wrote.

Quote from: Morlock;1121431As far as classes vs. point-based go, I prefer point-based, but classes make a lot of sense; probably more sense than point-based. People (i.e., characters) generally make choices in bundles. They may like to think they're special snowflakes, max agency in all things, but in reality they take their beliefs, for example, in bundles. If a person believes x, he also has a strong tendency to believe y and z, while the next guy believes a, and has a strong tendency to believe b and c.

Classes kinda reflect reality better. That said, they're kind of a straitjacket, too. Best of both worlds is a point-based system with a healthy selection of classes, kits, backgrounds, etc., for sale.

Yep. So cultural and professional and educational templates, designed to represent real experiences from the game setting, and a limited number of discretionary points. i.e. GURPS Templates, when done well.


My reaction to this thread in general is the way to "save" GURPS is to practice and develop a style you like, and the skills to play/GM that way well.

The way to "save" it for non-expert GMs would be to find or have someone write good settings that match the style you like. There certainly could use to be more of those, especially more simple ones for new players. IMO, more like Orcslayer and less like Dungeon Fantasy.

Quote from: Skarg;1121478However, many problems including that one can be avoided by having the people who pick and/or approve character traits be more interested in making interesting appropriate characters than in picking things for gamey efficiency.

And then they get frustrated because their character is completely incompetent, when compared to a character designed by someone who recognized how the game is put together, and made a few trade offs with that in mind.

GURPS superficially looks like a system that encourages characters who are diverse and highly detailed, and that's true in the scope of skills and abilities available. But costs for skills are based more on real world factors, like how long it takes to learn a particular skill, than on in-game factors, like whether that skill is useful in every game session, or almost never. And skills cost the same, no matter if it's your first skill or your 100th, even though they become diminishingly likely to be useful in the game. Plus after a certain number of skills based on a stat, it becomes cheaper just to buy up the stat than a new skill, and at the same time a high stat makes putting the minimum (1) points in a skill ever more effective. So the point buy system encourages buying up IQ and DX, focusing a lot of points in a few skills and then throwing 1 point in everything else. And since points are added together linearly, it means every point you put into a secondary or lesser ability is a point you could have put into something more immediately useful. which encourages putting points in stuff that's immediately useful in the game instead of supporting a colorful background. This all means the range of semi-optimal characters is far more constrained than the huge number of options in character creation suggests, and small differences in optimization can result in big differences in effectiveness. I'm not saying that GURPS is broken or impossible to run, just that the point system does not represent utility in the game, and characters built on the same point totals may vary widely in effectiveness.

The detail makes the GURPS system great for modeled characters, where you have a clear concept in mind (or are trying to represent a historical or fictional character), give them the skills and abilities that make the most sense, and only calculate the point total at the end. It also works fine if all the players are on roughly the same page when it comes to their skill and commitment to system mastery; or when the referee is experienced and confident enough to look over the character sheets, suggest adjustments, or tell other players to tone things down a bit. But at least the referee needs to keep these things in mind.

Incidentally, I agree with packages. Templates/lenses/etc. are a good way to build characters, by reducing the choices to a reasonable number, and making sure the characters are both well-rounded and effective without being ridiculously so within their specialty. It's basically modeling, except for professions or archetypes, and with an eye to balance.

Quote from: Skarg;1121478In some cases, though, I think there are some clusters of stats that can also be realistic. For example, the stats of pro athletes in a sport probably tend to cluster into certain ranges, which is a natural effect of the limits of intentional training for the role, and people selecting and being selected for roles that suit their natural gifts.

Except if you want to be a great pitcher, then spend 140 points on throwing or sport (baseball) and dump literally everything else that isn't related, and make sure to max out your disadvantages. (I'm simplifying a bit -- you'll need other traits, and depending on how it's resolved, you may have to buy up things like feint that allow you to exploit skill levels that exceed the 3d6 range.) The old joke that the typical GURPS character is a berserk hunchback with odious personal habits is more than a little true.

Note this reduced a bit for combat monsters, because outcomes in combat are dependent on many skills and abilities, so hyperspecialization is more limited. But it still exists.

Quote from: Pat;1121486And then they get frustrated because their character is completely incompetent, when compared to a character designed by someone who recognized how the game is put together, and made a few trade offs with that in mind.

I can see that possibly happening for people new to GURPS with GMs who didn't help.

I've been very fortunate, it seems, and/or picky at the right times, and so have mostly played with like-minded and/or skilled players, or at least with strong GMs.

For me/us, the frustrated player with an incompetent character has in practice been unusual, and compared to what I meant, would be a player who didn't know enough about GURPS to avoid making an "incompetent" character, yet was also going to be frustrated rather than entertained by playing that character, and a GM who also didn't know GURPS well and/or didn't help the player with their character.

In contrast, my/our experiences have seen players who made or were handed low-powered and inefficient characters tended to quite enjoy them (I think often more than they enjoy "efficient" characters), and if/when they stuck with them and roleplayed those characters developing more adventure competence (or even when they didn't, replacing them or retiring them or getting them killed or whatever), they tended up being some of the most memorable and interesting characters.

Quote from: Pat;1121486GURPS superficially looks like a system that encourages characters who are diverse and highly detailed, and that's true in the scope of skills and abilities available. But costs for skills are based more on real world factors, like how long it takes to learn a particular skill, than on in-game factors, like whether that skill is useful in every game session, or almost never. And skills cost the same, no matter if it's your first skill or your 100th, even though they become diminishingly likely to be useful in the game. Plus after a certain number of skills based on a stat, it becomes cheaper just to buy up the stat than a new skill, and at the same time a high stat makes putting the minimum (1) points in a skill ever more effective. So the point buy system encourages buying up IQ and DX, focusing a lot of points in a few skills and then throwing 1 point in everything else. And since points are added together linearly, it means every point you put into a secondary or lesser ability is a point you could have put into something more immediately useful. which encourages putting points in stuff that's immediately useful in the game instead of supporting a colorful background. This all means the range of semi-optimal characters is far more constrained than the huge number of options in character creation suggests, and small differences in optimization can result in big differences in effectiveness. I'm not saying that GURPS is broken or impossible to run, just that the point system does not represent utility in the game, and characters built on the same point totals may vary widely in effectiveness.

I get what you mean, and agree those are things to watch out for, and adjust things to avoid.

I prefer the point system to reflect the difficulty or rarity of abilities. I don't want them to try to (over)represent utility, because that would undermine their use to figure out how long it should (from a realist perspective, not a gamist one) take to learn and develop. In fact I notice and dislike the shift in that direction that seems to have been applied in 4e. I think if a GM wants that, then they should offer discounts or bonuses or templates or something that gives them the adjustments they want, but I want the points to be more about how rare or difficult it would be for a normal human to develop such abilities. (I get why 4e did that (more genericness so you can stat non-humans, "balance") but I dislike that approach).

It's also why I dislike other changes in 4e, such as flat costs to increase attributes rather than an increasing curve, and removing the double-cost to increase attributes after creation. I think the issues you mention are greatly increased when there are large numbers of points available, and when points are allowed to be spent on anything just by arbitrary player choice. (e.g. in 4e it's always 20 points to increase DX or IQ, and it's not strongly suggested to vet what points can be spent on, which I agree leads to the issue you described. So does the mere 4 points to keep increasing your best combat skill.)

If you have any ideas about ways you'd improve on the approach, I'd love to hear them.

Quote from: Pat;1121486The detail makes the GURPS system great for modeled characters, where you have a clear concept in mind (or are trying to represent a historical or fictional character), give them the skills and abilities that make the most sense, and only calculate the point total at the end. It also works fine if all the players are on roughly the same page when it comes to their skill and commitment to system mastery; or when the referee is experienced and confident enough to look over the character sheets, suggest adjustments, or tell other players to tone things down a bit. But at least the referee needs to keep these things in mind.

Yes, exactly.

Quote from: Pat;1121486Incidentally, I agree with packages. Templates/lenses/etc. are a good way to build characters, by reducing the choices to a reasonable number, and making sure the characters are both well-rounded and effective without being ridiculously so within their specialty. It's basically modeling, except for professions or archetypes, and with an eye to balance.

Yes.

Quote from: Pat;1121486Except if you want to be a great pitcher, then spend 140 points on throwing or sport (baseball) and dump literally everything else that isn't related, and make sure to max out your disadvantages. (I'm simplifying a bit -- you'll need other traits, and depending on how it's resolved, you may have to buy up things like feint that allow you to exploit skill levels that exceed the 3d6 range.)

I think the Basic Set should do more to explain and address that issue, because yes, it's technically possible to make ridiculous characters with silly ability levels in one thing, and all the skilled/sane GURPS GMs and players that I've known would reject a character with anywhere like that type of nonsense. That is, (what I would call) good GMs tend to require characters to make sense in detail, and that tends to involve points put into skills overall and specific skills to fall within certain ranges, such as the 2 points per year guideline you mentioned before.

(Also, realistically pro baseball is not just about throwing or Sport(Baseball) skill - it involves strength, health, running, perceptiveness, making good choices, etc.)

We've tried a variety of additional house-rule guidelines and systems over the years (er, decades), though it seems to be a difficult problem to satisfy in general for everyone because of different ideas, tastes, genres, and complexities.

So again it boils down to having a skilled GM and using whatever style of guidance they offer.

Quote from: Pat;1121486The old joke that the typical GURPS character is a berserk hunchback with odious personal habits is more than a little true.

Again, "good" GMs will tend to either not allow nonsensical and/or inappropriate characters, or play out their natural consequences. That character is liable to be treated as a monster, not allowed anywhere near the society of the PC group, treated as a monster, imprisoned or killed during adolescence, and if they do make it somehow into "the party", they probably won't last long, etc.

Even just RAW, there are strong suggestions to use a disadvantage limit and for the GM to vet disadvantages. There are generally non-silly disads available that give just as many points up to the limit, and that will also be less difficult to play, so such examples tend to be silly or from people who don't understand that. And if 40 does end up seeming too much, just reduce the disad limit to taste. If a GM hates characters who start with disads, all they have to do is say the disad limit is zero. They don't have to reject GURPS because it describes disads and suggests a 40 point disad limit to starting characters.

Quote from: Skarg;1121562I've been very fortunate, it seems, and/or picky at the right times, and so have mostly played with like-minded and/or skilled players, or at least with strong GMs.

I think the problem is more at the game level than at the player level. The reason you've played with experienced GMs and players who know how to the use the system isn't an accident, it's self-selection: Those are the type of players the increasingly crunchy game attracts. Which is fine, if you share that mentality. But it makes GURPS difficult or unappealing, if you do not. I think that's a big reason why GURPS has been diminishing in popularity.

Quote from: Skarg;1121562It's also why I dislike other changes in 4e, such as flat costs to increase attributes rather than an increasing curve, and removing the double-cost to increase attributes after creation. I think the issues you mention are greatly increased when there are large numbers of points available, and when points are allowed to be spent on anything just by arbitrary player choice. (e.g. in 4e it's always 20 points to increase DX or IQ, and it's not strongly suggested to vet what points can be spent on, which I agree leads to the issue you described. So does the mere 4 points to keep increasing your best combat skill.)

If you have any ideas about ways you'd improve on the approach, I'd love to hear them.

The flat cost makes it infinitely scalable, but it does hurt the sense of realism.

One way they could have handled it is to expand the concept of the unusual background, and tie UB to different degrees of rarity in a setting (or origin), instead of the haphazard way it's used now. For instance, start with a Strength cost of +10/level (as in 4E), but then apply a surcharge for scores of 14+ (an extra +5/level), another for scores of 16+ (+10/level), and another for scores over 18 (+15/level). Except make this part of UB relative, converting the 14+ to +50% the base cost, 16+ to +100%, 18+ to +150%, and 21+ to +infinity% (not possible for humans). That should exactly map to the progressive costs in 3E.

Then apply those modifiers to other abilities based on how rare they are in the setting, for instance +100% for psi powers in a hidden psi campaign, or the ability to forge iron is in a bronze age campaign (in other words, mucking with TLs). You can also do this for races or origins, with an ogre's Strength cap rising so the unusual background modifiers don't start being applied until 20+, or allowing a superhuman to increase strength with a campaign-defined limit, or even no limit at all. Backgrounds that break those limits in beneficial ways would have a flat cost, as well.

The disadvantage is this gets tricky to balance, and means the power of characters will vary based on setting and origin -- you can end up with two characters with the same stats, but different point costs.

DX and IQ are different, because they're strongly linked to the 3d6 roll. With higher strength, you just do/take more damage, but when you'll rolling against each other on a limited dice range, anything beyond that range becomes pointless, unless there are secondary ways to make that matter (e.g. feint).

Quote from: Skarg;1121562We've tried a variety of additional house-rule guidelines and systems over the years (er, decades), though it seems to be a difficult problem to satisfy in general for everyone because of different ideas, tastes, genres, and complexities.

So again it boils down to having a skilled GM and using whatever style of guidance they offer.

I've played a lot of super-hero games, and one thing I've learned from them is points really don't matter. What matters is whether each PC can contribute in common group efforts, and that they all have areas where they shine.

The ability to contribute is usually the ability to contribute in combat. That doesn't mean everyone has to be precisely balanced, but everyone needs to able to survive in a mass melee, and have something effective they can do. On defense, that requires a certain minimum level of toughness compared to the opposition they usually face, whether that's armor, hp, phasing, the skill to avoid attacks, or whatever combination. They also need the ability to defend against alternate attack methods, like like magic or psionics. On the offense side, that doesn't mean everyone needs a blast or a punch at the same level. Area control attacks, or a bag of tricks like a utility belt that can be applied in creative ways by creative players also work. And even the powerhouses can have different ranges, stunts, side-effects, limitations, and balance power vs. accuracy differently.

When it comes to the areas where they shine, also called niche protection, the interesting thing is that it's relative. It doesn't matter that much if you have a score of 30, or a score of 300. What matters is that you're better than the others PCs by at least a certain amount. The higher absolute ability changes the type challenges they'll face, and thus the nature of the game, more than it changes the player's ability to grab some spotlight time and look good.

That's why I emphasized that GURPS is good at modeling. It's contrary to a lot of GURPSheads, who often get very focused on points, but GURPS also works very well if you start with character concept, throw points out the window, and design a character to fit that concept. Then you keep on ignoring the points, but tweak the PCs to ensure everyone has a good chance to survive in a fight, everyone has something they can do in a fight, and that they all have things they're good at and nobody else is. This does require a certain degree of experience and judgment.

Quote from: Skarg;1121562Again, "good" GMs will tend to either not allow nonsensical and/or inappropriate characters, or play out their natural consequences. That character is liable to be treated as a monster, not allowed anywhere near the society of the PC group, treated as a monster, imprisoned or killed during adolescence, and if they do make it somehow into "the party", they probably won't last long, etc.

Even just RAW, there are strong suggestions to use a disadvantage limit and for the GM to vet disadvantages.

Social restrictions can be the easiest to get around, because how they're played out varies from table to table.

The reason the berserk -15 hunchback -10 with severe odious personal habits -15 became a running joke is because that exactly matches the standard -40 point disadvantage limit. If you keep the limit, there's a strong incentive to max it out, and 40 points usually means some pretty extreme physical or behavioral problems. So I agree with the poster who suggested reducing the limit to 0, or maybe -10 (there are a lot of -15 mental disads that really aren't suitable for heroic characters).

Quote from: Pat;1121597The reason the berserk -15 hunchback -10 with severe odious personal habits -15 became a running joke is because that exactly matches the standard -40 point disadvantage limit. If you keep the limit, there's a strong incentive to max it out, and 40 points usually means some pretty extreme physical or behavioral problems. So I agree with the poster who suggested reducing the limit to 0, or maybe -10 (there are a lot of -15 mental disads that really aren't suitable for heroic characters).

What is the the standard -40 point disadvantage limit?

Quote from: Gurps Characters, p.11A good rule of thumb is to hold disadvantages to 50% of starting points – for instance, -75 points in a 150-point game – although this is entirely up to the GM.

Quote from: Aglondir;1121600What is the the standard -40 point disadvantage limit?

The blind berserk hunchback was from 3e, where the default was 40 points in disadvantages. IIRC, the trope first appeared in the newsgroups.

Quote from: Pat;1121604The blind berserk hunchback was from 3e, where the default was 40 points in disadvantages. IIRC, the trope first appeared in the newsgroups.

Correct, just found it:

Quote from: Gurps Basic Set, p.26Game Masters should be careful how many disadvantages they allow players to take. This problem is often self-correcting; someone who spends a couple of hours playing a one-eyed, berserk, deaf hunchback who is afraid of the dark will either (a) kill the poor fellow off to be rid of him, or (b) have so much fun that nobody else will mind. But too many disadvantages can turn your game into a circus. A suggested limit: Disadvantages should not total more than -40 points. However, if only a single severe disadvantage (e.g., blindness) is taken, it may have any cost. Poverty, ugliness, bad reputation and attributes of 7 or less count as disadvantages.

Quote from: Pat;1121597One way they could have handled it is to expand the concept of the unusual background, and tie UB to different degrees of rarity in a setting (or origin), instead of the haphazard way it's used now. For instance, start with a Strength cost of +10/level (as in 4E), but then apply a surcharge for scores of 14+ (an extra +5/level), another for scores of 16+ (+10/level), and another for scores over 18 (+15/level). Except make this part of UB relative, converting the 14+ to +50% the base cost, 16+ to +100%, 18+ to +150%, and 21+ to +infinity% (not possible for humans). That should exactly map to the progressive costs in 3E.

Then apply those modifiers to other abilities based on how rare they are in the setting, for instance +100% for psi powers in a hidden psi campaign, or the ability to forge iron is in a bronze age campaign (in other words, mucking with TLs). You can also do this for races or origins, with an ogre's Strength cap rising so the unusual background modifiers don't start being applied until 20+, or allowing a superhuman to increase strength with a campaign-defined limit, or even no limit at all. Backgrounds that break those limits in beneficial ways would have a flat cost, as well.

The disadvantage is this gets tricky to balance, and means the power of characters will vary based on setting and origin -- you can end up with two characters with the same stats, but different point costs.

Yeah, even back in GURPS 1e, I started making attribute cost tables (with increasing cost curves) for each non-human race's attributes, to reflect that different races had different normal ranges and maximums, and how difficult I thought it should be to reach different levels of ability.

I doesn't bother me one bit if characters of two races with different typical ability levels have who have the same stats would come out to different points. I'd expect it, because the same stat may be unusual for one race but normal for another, etc, and the main thing I want points to do is to measure how unusual or difficult it is for someone to have a certain level of ability. If someone's PC is a halfling who's as strong as an athletic adult male human, that's a very impressive and rare halfling - I want it to cost a lot of points or even be nearly impossible to achieve, because the main thing I want the point system to support is having the world behave like what it's supposed to represent. I have no desire for notions of "balance" to mean halflings can gain strength as easily as humans. "Balance" as (and if) desired can be handled in what types of characters PCs can choose between and how many points different races and backgrounds end up letting them have.

Quote from: Pat;1121597DX and IQ are different, because they're strongly linked to the 3d6 roll. With higher strength, you just do/take more damage, but when you'll rolling against each other on a limited dice range, anything beyond that range becomes pointless, unless there are secondary ways to make that matter (e.g. feint).

Maybe you're talking about superheroes, but even if someone has very high DX or IQ (which at the power levels I tend to play at, is rare) or even skills, there are (or should be) uses for higher skill levels (which are also usually rare), because the GM should be at least applying modifiers based on what's being attempted, and also taking the margin of success into account. Sure, you probably only need Driving at 9 to get across town without mishap, because that's either just a check you have the skill, or a "don't miss by 10 or else we may have to roll again to see if something bad happened", but if you have Driving at 20, you can do some impressive things with that, and if your GM makes all driving feats just an unmodified 3d6 roll, he's doing it wrong.

Quote from: Pat;1121597I've played a lot of super-hero games, and one thing I've learned from them is points really don't matter. What matters is whether each PC can contribute in common group efforts, and that they all have areas where they shine.

The ability to contribute is usually the ability to contribute in combat. That doesn't mean everyone has to be precisely balanced, but everyone needs to able to survive in a mass melee, and have something effective they can do. On defense, that requires a certain minimum level of toughness compared to the opposition they usually face, whether that's armor, hp, phasing, the skill to avoid attacks, or whatever combination. They also need the ability to defend against alternate attack methods, like like magic or psionics. On the offense side, that doesn't mean everyone needs a blast or a punch at the same level. Area control attacks, or a bag of tricks like a utility belt that can be applied in creative ways by creative players also work. And even the powerhouses can have different ranges, stunts, side-effects, limitations, and balance power vs. accuracy differently.

When it comes to the areas where they shine, also called niche protection, the interesting thing is that it's relative. It doesn't matter that much if you have a score of 30, or a score of 300. What matters is that you're better than the others PCs by at least a certain amount. The higher absolute ability changes the type challenges they'll face, and thus the nature of the game, more than it changes the player's ability to grab some spotlight time and look good.

We're definitely coming from different perspectives and experiences. Just to point out the contrast, I play almost no superhero games and have little interest in designing to enable niche protection - if players want to look good and be better than other PCs at some things, it seems to me GURPS has so much detail that even in a plain medieval combat game there are plenty of ways for them to do that, and I think that's their business, not mine or the designers' to try to provide or protect it for them.

Quote from: Pat;1121597That's why I emphasized that GURPS is good at modeling. It's contrary to how a lot of GURPSheadsget very focused on points, but GURPS also works very well if you start with character concept, throw points out the window, and design a character to fit that concept. Then you keep on ignoring the points, ...

Yeah, I agree, and modeling is what I want and apart from the tactical combat, one of the main reasons why I like GURPS so much. Stuff makes sense and relates to reality, so I can figure out how to model things and characters pretty directly and easily. And yeah, I am more interested in just doing that modeling of characters, and not particularly interested in the character point assessment except for functions that are also about modeling and staying consistent and to notice power creep etc.

Quote from: Pat;1121597... but tweak the PCs to ensure everyone has a good chance to survive in a fight, everyone has something they can do in a fight, and that they all have things they're good at and nobody else is. This does require a certain degree of experience and judgment.

Except I wouldn't tend to do that part. Well, maybe a little bit, by way of advice and helping players set appropriate abilities for their characters and try to help them get the kinds of characters they want.

Quote from: Pat;1121597Social restrictions can be the easiest to get around, because how they're played out varies from table to table.

Well, they're the easiest at tables where they're made easy. ;-)

But also, they can be the easiest and least of a distraction when they're actually just part of the character concept and make sense. They can also help define and reinforce the intended game being played. Such as belonging to some group or organization or sharing goals or enemies or whatever that will keep the PCs together, supporting each other, and doing what the campaign is supposed to be about. Or just behaving the way the character concept is supposed to behave, or having social issues or limitations or other issues that make sense for the character concept.

Quote from: Pat;1121597The reason the berserk -15 hunchback -10 with severe odious personal habits -15 became a running joke is because that exactly matches the standard -40 point disadvantage limit. If you keep the limit, there's a strong incentive to max it out, and 40 points usually means some pretty extreme physical or behavioral problems.

I get the joke, and I can see being overwhelmed especially by the length of the 4e lists and going for some high-value ones or laughing about the funny weirdos you could make. But you can also get to -40 without being a freak or having severe issues. Most people have at least some negative traits or weaknesses, or some of who they are or their situation could be described as GURPS disadvantages.

Quote from: Pat;1121597So I agree with the poster who suggested reducing the limit to 0, or maybe -10 (there are a lot of -15 mental disads that really aren't suitable for heroic characters).

I agree that if the GM or players are having or taking issues with the disad limit it may just make sense to lower it or even set it to zero.  And it's always a good idea for the GM to review and rule out problem disads.

Quote from: Aglondir;1121609Correct, just found it:

I definitely misremembered it a bit.

Quote from: Skarg;1121613Maybe you're talking about superheroes, but even if someone has very high DX or IQ (which at the power levels I tend to play at, is rare) or even skills, there are (or should be) uses for higher skill levels (which are also usually rare), because the GM should be at least applying modifiers based on what's being attempted, and also taking the margin of success into account. Sure, you probably only need Driving at 9 to get across town without mishap, because that's either just a check you have the skill, or a "don't miss by 10 or else we may have to roll again to see if something bad happened", but if you have Driving at 20, you can do some impressive things with that, and if your GM makes all driving feats just an unmodified 3d6 roll, he's doing it wrong.

That's why I mentioned feint, it's the classic way to leverage a high skill, and prevent the infinite waiting for a crit of two skilled combatants.

Quote from: Skarg;1121613We're definitely coming from different perspectives and experiences. Just to point out the contrast, I play almost no superhero games and have little interest in designing to enable niche protection

I never suggested designing to enable niche protection.

Quote from: Skarg;1121613Except I wouldn't tend to do that part. Well, maybe a little bit, by way of advice and helping players set appropriate abilities for their characters and try to help them get the kinds of characters they want.

So you would do it.

Like niche protection, this is primarily the player's responsibility. They have to make characters who are survivable, given the premise and expectations of the game, and who can each do something unique. If you have an experienced group, who are all on the same page, this largely takes care of itself. The GM definitely has a role, but it's primarily a quick assessment to see if there are any major problems.

But it becomes much more important when there are new or inexperienced players, who will need some help not just figuring out how to make a character, but to make a character that plays well with the group and can hold their own. It's also important with new groups, or when trying different things, because baseline expectations of the game may not have been fully communicated yet, and it's a good place to spot and smooth over areas of miscommunication. For instance, two players both make characters who are almost identical — are they okay with that? Or if you really plan on running a classic mystery campaign, but it hasn't sunk in for your players, and somebody creates a sniper almost exclusively focused on combat.

Quote from: Skarg;1121613But also, they can be the easiest and least of a distraction when they're actually just part of the character concept and make sense. They can also help define and reinforce the intended game being played. Such as belonging to some group or organization or sharing goals or enemies or whatever that will keep the PCs together, supporting each other, and doing what the campaign is supposed to be about. Or just behaving the way the character concept is supposed to behave, or having social issues or limitations or other issues that make sense for the character concept.

One thing I don't like about GURPS is the severity of the mental disads -- a lot of the -15 point ones are enough to classify someone as clinically insane, and have them locked up for the rest of their life. And you're supposed to take 40 or 75 points of them? The disads encourage freaks. I'm almost inclined to run a campaign limited to quirks.

Quote from: Pat;1121350That's one of the things that makes point-build character creation difficult to balance across different scales. You end up with certain optimal mixes of skills and stats, meaning that for any particular point build IQ and DX will cluster around a certain level, and so will the levels of your skills. Which means characters like the Hulk will never appear, because after a certain point bumping up DX and spending the points on skills needed to turn him into a combat monster will provide more benefit than another minor incremental increase in strength. I've seen people argue that this is realistic, but it's really not. It's gamist.

It not that difficult with GURPS. Why? Because every element of GURPS connect to a single thing. There is very little in the way of abstraction. If that element (attribute, advantage, disadvantage) involves something in life then it is tied to a quantifiable measurement. Or a narrow concept like combat reflexes representing somebody who has trained in combat.

What this mean that you define the setting first and pick those elements of GURPS that fit the setting. GURPS system has been very good at that except at the two extreme end of the scale. The very small or the bunnies & burrows issues. Or the very large the superman issue. There is GURPS is just so-so.

Why does GURPS has this problem and not Hero System, Fudge, or Mayfair's DC Heroes. Because each of those system designed their core mechanics around a scale so that Superman or Bunnies can be represented without resorting to odd (negative points) or extreme (high point totals) values like GURPS. However the consequence of this is that those system lose the fidelity and nuances of the human scale that GURPS have.

Quote from: Skarg;1121562I prefer the point system to reflect the difficulty or rarity of abilities. I don't want them to try to (over)represent utility, because that would undermine their use to figure out how long it should (from a realist perspective, not a gamist one) take to learn and develop. In fact I notice and dislike the shift in that direction that seems to have been applied in 4e.

Purely for speculation purposes, what if skills in GURPS were treated like Spiritual Attributes are explicitly instructed to be treated in The Riddle of Steel?

In TROS, gaining points in SAs is how characters improve and how they are most effective, so the game explicitly tells the GM that when a player picks a particular SA -- Conscience, Faith, Drive, Passion, whatever -- for his PC, he is directly telling the GM, "This is what I want my hero's adventures to be based around."  If he has a Drive "Become the best swordsman in the realm", for example, a GM who concentrates on personal intrigue and is extremely sparing with swordfights is directly thwarting his chosen areas of interest, progress, and exceptionality.

But in practice this really applies to any game ability: if a player spends points on a skill, he's basically telling the GM and the group, "I want my character's ability to do this to be part of the game."  So unless the skill/campaign mismatch is so acute that it simply won't work at all, a better approach might be to emphasize strongly to the GM that adventures should be designed around characters as much as characters should be designed around adventures.

Quote from: estar;1121640It not that difficult with GURPS. Why? Because every element of GURPS connect to a single thing. There is very little in the way of abstraction. If that element (attribute, advantage, disadvantage) involves something in life then it is tied to a quantifiable measurement. Or a narrow concept like combat reflexes representing somebody who has trained in combat.

What this mean that you define the setting first and pick those elements of GURPS that fit the setting. GURPS system has been very good at that except at the two extreme end of the scale. The very small or the bunnies & burrows issues. Or the very large the superman issue. There is GURPS is just so-so.

Why does GURPS has this problem and not Hero System, Fudge, or Mayfair's DC Heroes. Because each of those system designed their core mechanics around a scale so that Superman or Bunnies can be represented without resorting to odd (negative points) or extreme (high point totals) values like GURPS. However the consequence of this is that those system lose the fidelity and nuances of the human scale that GURPS have.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. GURPS does tend to be best at the human scale, traits tend to map to more concrete things, and there's a greater degree of detail within the human range than in the systems you're comparing it to. But I was pointing out that the point buy system tends to encourage clusters of stat/skill scores, for instance all those IQ 13 mages in 3E, though the exact scores tend to shift up and down with a character's overall point total. That seems unrelated to anything you said.

Incidentally, it's not something I'd recommend in a super game, but bunnies & burrows should work fine if you just renormalize the game around the bunny scale. It's one of the 3E supplements I don't have, so I don't know how O'Sullivan handled it.

Quote from: Pat;1121634That's why I mentioned feint, it's the classic way to leverage a high skill, and prevent the infinite waiting for a crit of two skilled combatants.

Sure, and there are many more uses for skill over 16 as well, such as defenses which are a fraction of skill and have increasing penalties for multiple uses per turn, coping with various penalties for circumstances, difficulty modifiers, and attack types, hit locations and maneuvers that come with skill penalties, as well as Deceptive Attack which lets you sacrifice attack skill to penalize the target's defenses by half as much.

Quote from: Pat;1121634So you would do it.

Well no, not the way you put it that I was responding to. As you quoted me writing, "I wouldn't tend to do that part. Well, maybe a little bit, by way of advice and helping players set appropriate abilities for their characters and try to help them get the kinds of characters they want."

More specifically, I would help an inexperienced GURPS player designing a character choose values that I think will give them something like what they're hoping for in terms of abilities, for example by telling them that they might want to put some more points in skills X, Y and Z if they want to be the competent fighter they're describing. But if their character is not someone good in a fight, I'll just make sure they understand that, not tell them they need to have a character that's good in a fight. And I would not ensure "that they all have things they're good at and nobody else is". If they express that that is a desire of theirs, then I'd help them make a character that's good at some unusual things, and I'll usually let them coordinate choices with other players, but I'm not going to require non-overlap or non-competition or that they won't ever meet anyone as good or better than they are at something.

Quote from: Pat;1121634Like niche protection, this is primarily the player's responsibility. They have to make characters who are survivable, given the premise and expectations of the game, and who can each do something unique. If you have an experienced group, who are all on the same page, this largely takes care of itself. The GM definitely has a role, but it's primarily a quick assessment to see if there are any major problems.

Yes. But I'll just let them know they have some of the same skills or specialties, and they can decide if it's a problem or not. Very often we have multiple fighters, for example, and they may often choose similar equipment and fighting styles and whatever. Players I know, if they select for variety, it's because it seems overkill to have three surgeons in a party, or they don't want to compete to be the leader because that sounds like an annoying interaction to them, or they're interested in trying something they haven't done before, or they're interested in a character idea, or they don't want their group not to have enough fighters. But I'm having a hard time thinking of cases where anyone was upset because they weren't the best at something, not getting the spotlight they craved, etc.

Quote from: Pat;1121634But it becomes much more important when there are new or inexperienced players, who will need some help not just figuring out how to make a character, but to make a character that plays well with the group and can hold their own. It's also important with new groups, or when trying different things, because baseline expectations of the game may not have been fully communicated yet, and it's a good place to spot and smooth over areas of miscommunication. For instance, two players both make characters who are almost identical -- are they okay with that? Or if you really plan on running a classic mystery campaign, but it hasn't sunk in for your players, and somebody creates a sniper almost exclusively focused on combat.

Yeah, I agree. We just have slightly different ideas, styles and/or experiences with player upsets. We often play games where most/all of the players are mainly ancient/medieval melee fighters, and often have very similar equipment and skills (especially if we're playing a historical game), and I don't remember that ever being an issue for them, or if it was, they did something about it themselves. When people's characters have had similar expertise, they've tended to enjoy the competition and/or cooperation becoming even more "cool" by working together.

Quote from: Pat;1121634One thing I don't like about GURPS is the severity of the mental disads -- a lot of the -15 point ones are enough to classify someone as clinically insane, and have them locked up for the rest of their life. And you're supposed to take 40 or 75 points of them? The disads encourage freaks. I'm almost inclined to run a campaign limited to quirks.

Yeah, I get what you mean... I think it is worth looking at and avoiding setting up a situation where it feels expected or too tempting to mess up your character to get more points. Or even where there's just too much official detail that I'd rather not fuss with.

I think the "50%" notion in 4e seems weird/wrong to me, especially if it leads to people taking severe disads that mess up their character in unintended ways to get the points.

I prefer the earlier editions' guidelines on disads, which acknowledge what you're saying.

There are some pretty soft and/or appropriate disads though which I don't mind and I think can be fun and interesting in appropriate moderation.

And some disads can be useful to define / constrain PC behavior to an agreed frame, such as Duty, Sense of Duty, Dependents, Code of Honor, etc.

And I do like the idea of being able to do an interesting concept that includes disads when it makes sense and is wanted. For example, playing a more experienced character with some consequences as well as advantages from his experiences.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1121646Purely for speculation purposes, what if skills in GURPS were treated like Spiritual Attributes are explicitly instructed to be treated in The Riddle of Steel?

In TROS, gaining points in SAs is how characters improve and how they are most effective, so the game explicitly tells the GM that when a player picks a particular SA -- Conscience, Faith, Drive, Passion, whatever -- for his PC, he is directly telling the GM, "This is what I want my hero's adventures to be based around."  If he has a Drive "Become the best swordsman in the realm", for example, a GM who concentrates on personal intrigue and is extremely sparing with swordfights is directly thwarting his chosen areas of interest, progress, and exceptionality.

But in practice this really applies to any game ability: if a player spends points on a skill, he's basically telling the GM and the group, "I want my character's ability to do this to be part of the game."  So unless the skill/campaign mismatch is so acute that it simply won't work at all, a better approach might be to emphasize strongly to the GM that adventures should be designed around characters as much as characters should be designed around adventures.

I don't think it is the GM's job to bend the reality of the game world to accommodate character designs (in fact, in the reality-oriented games, I want them not to), but I do think of it as the GM's job to present the world and its possibilities to the players through the lens of their characters. Which means that a PC having skills/traits/training/powers/experience/orientation/etc means they will tend to notice and frame their experiences around the things they know and automatically look for and think about. A warrior will tend to notice tactical situations and other fighters. A thief will tend to notice theft opportunities and other thieves. A priestess will tend to notice things relevant to her spirituality and training. A climber will notice things that could be climbed. So the GM should consider, develop and mention relevant things as the GM determines such things do exist to be noticed.

That is, yes I'll include and point out adventure opportunities relevant to the players, but I won't artificially conjure them, or design them so that there are obstacles that are placed there just because I was thinking about the skills the PCs have.

I also support players seeking and taking action to find or cause situations relevant to their characters, again, in ways that make sense.