Examples of 'Legacy Faults' in GURPS 4e?

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Something that I think is Legacy Code (i.e. things that were copied verbatim because no one saw the need to change them, and that in the new paradigm don't work optimally) is the lines on Insubstantiability that refer to magic ad psionics not needing affects substantial but just incurring in a -3 penalty. Why magic and psi? what makes chi and super individual abilities require the affects substantial enhancement? I understand that spells can't take enhancements, so it's reasonable for the magic-as-skills approach that is the standard magic system. Now, having a -10% magic or psi modifier grant affects substantial and affects insubstantial for free in exchange of a small -3 penalty doesn't seem right. There as some intense discussion on the playtest for Thaumatology for this, and I think that there were some very interesting options in there for fixing it. I do not recall which one, if it was made publicaly available, was chosen.

That's not Legacy Code. That wasn't in 3e. At least, none of the copies of Supers or Compendium 1 I have.

[Rotwang]

Inappropriate trait name cary-over: For example Honesty isn’t really honesty (that’s covered by Truthfulness); Honesty should be call Law-Abiding, or whatever. 4/e could have been an opportunity to sort that kind of stuff out, if there was no concern of 3/e compatibility.

Magery: I would rather have seen the “cast spells,” “sense magic,” and “bonus to spell rolls” functions split into individual Advantages. The “sense magic” part could be dropped as it’s covered by Detect. Likewise the “bonus to spells” part could have been dropped because it’s more or less a Talent.

Clerical Investment as a prerequisite for Clerical Rank: There’s no similar “Military Investment” (or whatever) as a required buy-in advantage for the other versions of Rank, so Clerical Rank shouldn’t have one either.

Fearlessness and Unfazeable: Could have been handled with a mechanism
similar to Resistant; bonuses up to some level and then an added Immunity level on top of that.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Molokh

AFAIK those optional modifiers are still not mathematically sound/correct ways of using percentages.

Huh? What's not "mathematically sound" about it?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Rotwang

Inappropriate trait name cary-over [...] if there was no concern of 3/e compatibility.

There was significant concern of 3e compatibility, however. Otherwise, we would have changed a lot of names. Needless to say, many of the playtesters wanted to see changes. But compatibility won out.

Originally Posted by Rotwang

Magery: I would rather have seen the “cast spells,” “sense magic,” and “bonus to spell rolls” functions split into individual Advantages. The “sense magic” part could be dropped as it’s covered by Detect. Likewise the “bonus to spells” part could have been dropped because it’s more or less a Talent.

It's a good optional rule. If magic is meant to be rare and hard to do, then a person could replace Magery 0 with a "Spellcaster" trait -- a de facto Unusual Background, worth whatever it's worth -- and shunt magic sense off to Detect. Then one could treat Magery as a generic Talent. It would take up more space on character sheets and cost more points, but not everybody would hate that.

Originally Posted by Rotwang

Clerical Investment as a prerequisite for Clerical Rank: There’s no similar “Military Investment” (or whatever) as a required buy-in advantage for the other versions of Rank, so Clerical Rank shouldn’t have one either.

I disagree strongly. Not all hierarchies are created equal. Police and Religious Rank have Clerical Investment and Legal Enforcement Powers as buy-ins because they represent hierarchies where even members with Rank 0, for 0 points, have dispensations that those without Rank, also for 0 points, lack. On the other hand, Administrative Rank 0 means you're doing the same job as a guy with no Administrative Rank, but for the government, while Military Rank 0 subjects you to strict military law and give you no special standing in the civilian world outside of a police state (where it's really Police Rank and has Legal Enforcement Powers again).

Originally Posted by Rotwang

Fearlessness and Unfazeable: Could have been handled with a mechanism similar to Resistant; bonuses up to some level and then an added Immunity level on top of that.

We thought about it. Indeed, Unfazeable is simply Immunity to Fear and Imperturbable is Immunity to Social Manipulation, both treated as "common" items. However, we liked the idea of a more fine-grained bonus to Fright Checks*, so we kept Fearlessness. It was touch-and-go, but it wasn't simply overlooked.

--

* Because unlike other forms of Resistant, Resistant to Fear is critically important to gameplay in an important genre -- horror -- and it's crucial to be able to fine-tune there. Much as how Resistant to Magic is vitally important to gameplay in fantasy. That's why Fearlessness and Magic Resistance stand alone.

[jSarek]

Originally Posted by Kromm

We thought about it. Indeed, Unfazeable is simply Immunity to Fear and Imperturbable is Immunity to Social Manipulation, both treated as "common" items. However, we liked the idea of a more fine-grained bonus to Fright Checks*, so we kept Fearlessness. It was touch-and-go, but it wasn't simply overlooked.

--

* Because unlike other forms of Resistant, Resistant to Fear is critically important to gameplay in an important genre -- horror -- and it's crucial to be able to fine-tune there. Much as how Resistant to Magic is vitally important to gameplay in fantasy. That's why Fearlessness and Magic Resistance stand alone.

What made you decide not to just give all Resistances this kind of fine-tunability? It doesn't seem like it would take up more space or be harder to implement than the existing Resistance rules, and then it would give players of more obscure genres the same fine-grained options (Doctors Without Borders and Disease Resistance, for instance).

[Rotwang]

Originally Posted by Kromm

We thought about it. Indeed, Unfazeable is simply Immunity to Fear and Imperturbable is Immunity to Social Manipulation, both treated as "common" items. However, we liked the idea of a more fine-grained bonus to Fright Checks*, so we kept Fearlessness. It was touch-and-go, but it wasn't simply overlooked.

--

* Because unlike other forms of Resistant, Resistant to Fear is critically important to gameplay in an important genre -- horror -- and it's crucial to be able to fine-tune there. Much as how Resistant to Magic is vitally important to gameplay in fantasy. That's why Fearlessness and Magic Resistance stand alone.

No, I totaly aggree with the need for fine-tuned controls in this case I just mean a mechanism like Resistant, so I don't have to flip to different advantages to be somewhat unscareable vs. totally unscareable ;)

[Rotwang]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Well, one thing is that Clerical Investment is described as making you an ordained priest, and giving you specifically the authority to perform marriages. But in the Catholic Church (particularly before the Vatican II Council) a priest held quite a high rank, with authority over deacons, subdeacons, readers, exorcists, doorkeepers, and over monks, nuns, and tertiaries (often including the superiors of monasteries and nunneries in his parish). In the eyes of the Church the people of a parish were subject to their priest's (and dean's/archdeacon's, bishop's, metropolitan's, primate's and the Pope's) jurisdiction, too. I reckon that if I were to run a GURPS mediaeval campaign I would ignore 'Clerical Investment'. Characters in the clergy would need to buy 'Legal Immunity', and a priest would be about Clerical Rank 3 or 4.

Sounds like a good idea for a Pyamid article. Oh, wait I already did that:
http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=6160
:)

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by Molokh

AFAIK those optional modifiers are still not mathematically sound/correct ways of using percentages.

One of the key problems I see in handling multiplicative percentages is "in what order do I apply the percentages?" I could take one trait, tack on three modifiers, and get somewhere around six to nine different final values depending on the order in which I applied the modifiers to the original trait.

The optional rules lay down one method of applying the modifiers; other GMs may apply other methods, no doubt.

[chimchim]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

Pyromania doesn't read that way. That maybe what the designers "meant," but it remains vague at best.

If I walk into a paper factory and I've got pyromania and fail my CR I will be doing property damage - ILLEGAL property damage mind you. Even if I practice safety, I've still got to roll to avoid burning OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. Why is it -15 points to avoid STEALING other people's property but only -5 points to avoid BURNING other people's property?

If I walk into a beauty pageant and I have lecherousness I make a fool out of myself, but I'm not technically breaking the law (at least not in many settings). I agree that lecherousness is not compulsive raping; the way it is written reflects this. "making a pass" doesn't mean raping. I get that. Starting a fire WHENEVER YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY is necessarily criminal and arson since you are likely to have the opportunity to set the neighbors house on fire. "Oh really? Sure Bob, I'LL take care of your house while your gone..." Better make that CR roll.. Did I make it? No? Goodie goodie goodie!!!

So what I'm saying is - the wording is vague enough to make pyromania as bad as compulsive arson for -5 points.

i have to disagree purely on the bassis of personal experience i have a friend who is a pyromaniac (diagnosed) and has never set fire to another persons property. he wll however spend hours staring at lit candles, fire places and even lighters. It can be quite freaky to watch his reaction to any one lighting a cigerette. that for me is a five point pyromaniac and i would guess what the RAW mean. any worse and the base cost should increase.

[NineDaysDead]

It’s already been covered on two threads, but Very Rapid Healing [15] vs. Regeneration: Slow [10]:
Both give +5 to healing rolls, but VRH lets you heal 2 HP on a successful roll, per day, whereas Regeneration: Slow lets you heal 1 HP on a successful roll + 2 HP automatically, per day. And VRH costs 5 points more.

Kromm’s proposed solution doesn’t really cut it: VRH gives +10 to healing rolls, taken with the prerequisite HT 12, this gives 22 instead of 17, which doesn’t make a vast difference, and a +5 to bleeding rolls, (+8 to bleeding rolls is probably worth about 1 point *[1]).

Frankly I’d much rather see Rapid Healing and Regeneration all rolled into one advantage. Based around some kind of formula that would let you work out just how much say healing 1 HP every 5 minutes was worth. A bit like Hero 5th. EDIT: This would also be useful for Regeneration: Fatigue, for when you’re trying to get the level of detail of GURPS Myth Fatigue recovery.

*[1] Injury Tolerance: No Blood *[2] costs 5 points and provides Immunity to HT rolls based around blood. This is basically a Rare form of Resistant at the Immunity level. Resistance: Rare +8 costs [2]. Apply (Blood clots almost immediately: vulnerable to poisons, but no Bleeding rolls) -50%) from TS:DB p114 and you get [1].

*[2]Injury Tolerance: No Blood looks like another piece of legacy code, if it had been invented in 4th, it would probably be listed under Resistant.