View Single Post
Old 11-07-2014, 07:15 AM   #39
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Balancing High Size Modifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
I would presume that he did in a number of instances. We don't see lots of things in the Conan stories.
Only its not really a key part of the genre is my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
Anyway ErhnamDJ was talking about encumbrance not money.
Something that extra ST more than compensates for as per the other points.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
Well, fair enough but the normal rules are that SM is determined by longest dimension with a bonus for elongated boxes and spheres.
Well by that definition anyone over 6' is SM+1, is that how you run it?

Either way there's also the point that if the other two dimensions are both much smaller than the longest you go down SM, which I think is where being skinny comes in.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
It doesn't really matter. ST's flexibility is taken into account in it's point cost. It also has a synergistic relationship with the benefits of negative SMs. Other advantages commonly found next to an advantage don't improve that advantage itself.
It kind of does that's what synergistic means, especially if your also reducing the cost of that advantage (which SM does)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
Unlike many RPGs, It's a principle of gurps design that privilege of purchasing other abilities is not worth points. A periodically disrespected principle but a principle nonetheless.
"Unusual background" says otherwise

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
They leverage more money by virtue of being higher point characters.
Not in this instance, SM+1 doesn't cost points (it trades vs. other things though) moreover ST is cheaper, so they will actually be same ST for less, or more ST for same points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
I don't have complaints about a ST 7 human.
They would have the same issues as lower than average ST larger creature


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
No, they already had those points. They are merely assigning them elsewhere.
Yes but they have them to assign elsewhere. You point was they'd have less points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
No one is claiming that positive SMs don't have advantages. Those 10 points just aren't good enough.
OK, but in this instance your arguing that the net balance of advantages to advantages is more than 10 points in the disadvantage's favor? The problem we've got here is the that balance is going to be so dependent on campaign setting I'd say it going to be impossible to come up with a general equation here. (eve more so than some other advantages where this is an issue)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
Discussing in the sense of "talking about" yet. Discussing in the sense of "primary purpose of the thread" no. There has been a lot of electronic ink spilt on this subject already. I'm happy to engage in a side discussion about the necessity of the thread in the first place, but it's primary purpose is to discuss solutions under the assumption that the problems are valid.
I'd argue that deciding weather or not a solution is needed is part and parcel of discussing what's a reasonable solution. i.e no solution could = the correct solution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
The point of rules is reducing the situations where common sense has to kick in. Most rules should simply function without oversight and thus not require precious gm cognitive resources and allow players to walk away and come up with ideas without having to constantly ping the gm with questions about ambiguous rules. Making every increase in mass be a disadvantage to a character without adding houserules to make it a Disadvantage is an incentive nightmare.
I really don't think saying no to characters wanting to be SM+1 and 1lb as being that (well unless they are a magically animated balloon animal)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
Not lead armour, lead people. A person who weighs more will require more costly armour but because they are also larger not because they weigh more. If you increase a person's density (within reason) their armour doesn't cost more.
If Lead people are truly going to be setting thing I could just factor in some density multiplier between flesh and lead, job done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
The downsides are that if you want to take the normal rules and switch weight scaling by SM to smooth weight scaling volume you need to come up with the price of larger or smaller volumes
Which are already in the rules


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
and establish minimums and maximums of volume for various other stats.
Why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
If not wearing armour is a legitimate choice in other regards it is also difficult to balance the trait between people wearing armour for whom it matters a good deal and people who aren't for whom it's almost free points.
Only if not wearing armour is legitimate choice (presumably because of some specific effect that replaces/invalidates) then you will already have paid for that in other advantages. Take your lead person. Someone made of lead is not going to need armour in comparison to their flesh and blood counter part. But that will be modelling in the system by them paying for Innate DR, and quite likely homogeneous (he'll not spend points in swimming either)
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
The issue is that they suffer as much as their strong brethren but aren't compensated equally because some of their compensation is hidden in ST costs.
But that's the same as saying a weak ST7 SM0 human is penalised by missing out on the -1 to be hit , that a averagely strong ST7 SM-1 halfling gets.

I have to say ultimately I think in terms of absolute points values doesn't work for SM, because the ads/dis-ads are so wide ranging and dependent on setting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindri View Post
Rules frequently survive the equivalent by not allowing the situation to develop in the first place.
Personally I don't value rules by their ability to tackle the incredibly unlikely or daft (I can do that myself without recourse to rules) rather I value rules by their ability to deal with issues that are are more likely and a lot less fringe.

Either way that particular dilemma can easily be tackled by the point about density made at the top.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote