Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
Yes. In fact, training time is probably the most pedestrian and least heroic explanation for points in skills; on some level, I regret that the game talks about it. Some or all points in skill can be read as "Talent for this one skill" – I get into this in many of my supplements.* If you really want someone who is insanely talented with a skill, buy a high level of the skill and explain it as ". . . and I'm a natural." Done.
* For instance, on GURPS Power-Ups 3: Talents, p. 17: "Conversely, skills aren't necessarily learned; high Running skill might suggest physical training, but PCs without track-and-field experience can select it as a natural propensity – or buy it with earned points for reasons of dramatic necessity."
|
This is really good. I think it's far better for a GM to control the skill levels than the skill points. Sure, you can use points sometimes to reflect training. For things like piloting it can help you work out how many familiarities you have. But really, it's more of a balance control factor, trying to let a group of characters be roughly the same power overall. Denying (or insisting) on point spends at a given level doesn't really add anything that isn't better handled by reviewing the skill level, imo.
On the general topic of teenagers and learning, it's well established that kids generally learn faster than adults, and there's a new study that suggests it might be down to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) levels. In short, kids "reset" faster after learning something and can start learning again (about 10 minutes compared to an hour for adults). So it's perfectly reasonable for kids to have learned a large variety of things in a time that might seem unrealistic for an adult (or not in line with GURPS guidelines on how quickly one can learn). Of course, the depth of understanding in some contexts might be limited due to limited neural development, but that's where "natural talent" can be an acceptable plot element to justify it.