25% of Starting Points

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Henchman99942

I am running a low point level campaign. Assume the starting point value for the game to be 25 points. When you add allies or enemies to the game, the points value of those allies and enemies is skewed because their value is toed to the starting point value of the game. Shouldn't this modifier instead be based on the actual point value rather than the relative point value? Should we use 100 points as the base and calculate from this base?

Low point characters probably shouldn't have allies when you consider that they have no points to spare on more than the bare necessities.

[Bicorn]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

25 points does not produce worthwhile characters in GURPS 4e unless you are playing a campaign involving children or fuzzy woodland creatures. In my games, I generally have 5 year old children at 25 points, 10 year old children at 50 points, and 15 year old children at 75 points (with adults gaining 5 points for every year above 15 years old, though most of that is related to work and hobby skills). Of course, the PCs usually start at 250 points, so my 'average' may be more competent than other people's average.

Considering most people's attempts at statting up themselves result in point totals around 0 I would say you're ranking "average" ability level rather higher than most, yes.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Note that, even if the GM is using a disadvantage limit for players, there's no need to apply the same for Allies. If you give them a lot of problems, they can have the points to get decent stats and skills, and still have pretty low total point values. And lots of animal allies are at this low level, because "being an animal" is a package that has a lot of built-in disadvantages. Even a cinematically-smart animal probably has something like IQ 6 [-60] (assuming Per and Will bought up to 10), Cannot Speak [-15], Social Stigma (Valuable Property) [-10], and Wealth (Dead Broke) [-25]. That's 110 points to spend on skills and attributes right there, and still be a 0-point character.

That said, Allies do tend to get a bit wonky at very low point values, it's true. Personally, I'd house-rule that at 50 points or lower, Ally just buys you a flat point value of Ally, set at the numbers for 50 points. So, a 1-point Ally is 12 points, 2 points buys you one with 25 points, 3 points is 37 points, 5 points is 50, and 10 points is 75. I don't think that a 20-point character is going to break the game if 10 points buys them an Ally built on 75 points, rather than 30.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Henchman99942

I agree that Allies should never be much greater in power than the PCs. If they ever reach that level, then they should be treated as Patrons instead.

Take the case of the 1000 point campaign. You can have a 250 point Ally that is always around for 4 points.

Take the case of the 150 point campaign. Your every present 225 point ally costs 40 points.

Now granted, the ally in the second example is far more valuable to the PC, but the cost of other Advantages, such as Combat Reflexes, remains constant. I feel that linking Ally cost to the campaign setting changes the relative value of Ally compared to other Advantages.

The problem is if your 150 pts and you are running around with a 225pt ally all the time, aren't you really just the 150pt ally of the 225 pt character in their campaign?! ;-)

I.e. to be less flippant the costing of ally seem to be partially about not making you 2nd fiddle in your own adventures.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

Considering most people's attempts at statting up themselves result in point totals around 0 I would say you're ranking "average" ability level rather higher than most, yes.

I think that they are seriously underestimating that amount of work and hobby skills that they have acquired over the years. At the very least, they should have a minimum of 5 points of skills for every year of life over 15. Even if all a 40 year old did was play board games for 25 years, they will have 125 points in Games, though the utility of having Games (Catan) at IQ+30 is awfully limited.

[Latro]

Games (Catan) at IQ+30 is awfully limited.[/QUOTE]

This is higher than my skill cap in my gurps competitive board game tournament campaign.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I believe Henchman is lamenting that in order to take an Ally that's even worth having show up (thus being built on 25 points, a 5 point Ally at 100% of Character points) would be a significant percentage of a Character's starting points*, whereas having one they can afford would be a completely useless Ally (thus being built on 5 points or 25% of Character points).

* There is a vast difference in spending 5 points on a 25 point character versus a 100 point character.

I think you're right; I think people are focusing on the power of an Ally compared to the PC, whereas what Henchman is talking about is the percentage of a PC's starting points that an Ally takes up.

A 100-point character gets a built-on-100-points Ally for 5% of his starting points. A 25-point characters gets a built-on-25-points Ally for 20% of his starting points. The 100-point character hardly notices the cost of an equal Ally; the 25-point character can barely afford the cost of an equal ally. (This is also the problem with flat tax rates.)

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I think that they are seriously underestimating that amount of work and hobby skills that they have acquired over the years. At the very least, they should have a minimum of 5 points of skills for every year of life over 15. Even if all a 40 year old did was play board games for 25 years, they will have 125 points in Games, though the utility of having Games (Catan) at IQ+30 is awfully limited.

Real people don't gain points at a rate of 200 hours = 1 character points. They may gain them much faster over dramatic periods in their lives and they might be static or deteriorate during other periods.

Playing board games as a social activity, with no actual desire to win, let alone any motivation to develop your skill competatively, will usually result in skills plateauing out pretty quickly. Once you know the rules, you aren't getting any better, not unless it somehow matters enough to you* that you analyse your play and that of your opponents, making notes of all mistakes for future reference.

Most PCs in RPGs are effectively superheroes, even if they have no abilities beyond the RAW, in that rules for learning skills and adding abilities usually assume that they can mantain the kind of intense focus of which humans are occasionally capable througout their entire careers, continuing to learn new things and develop their areas of expertise without ever settling into a routine where they mentally check out most of the time. Like normal people.

Normal people learn their job skills well enough to be fairly comfortable at their daily tasks and then their advancement slows to a crawl, and in some cases, actually stops entirely, sometimes to the point that failing to follow new development results in effective skill penalties. Hobby skills may be learned to awesome levels, but usually aren't, because most people spend their free time idly wasting time, not actively trying to learn new things.

*Which, to me, at least, is entirely incompatible with playing board games for fun. Darts, pool, board games, card games, those are all valid things to play socially, but I don't find any of them interesting enough in themselves to want to focus any part of my attention on them. The moment winning the game you are playing becomes more important to you than the conversation and socialisation going on around it, you've become the guy ruining something fun by taking it too seriously.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

I think you're right; I think people are focusing on the power of an Ally compared to the PC, whereas what Henchman is talking about is the percentage of a PC's starting points that an Ally takes up.

A 100-point character gets a built-on-100-points Ally for 5% of his starting points. A 25-point characters gets a built-on-25-points Ally for 20% of his starting points. The 100-point character hardly notices the cost of an equal Ally; the 25-point character can barely afford the cost of an equal ally. (This is also the problem with flat tax rates.)

Thing is you could make that argument for pretty much any advantage. Combat reflexes cost a 100pt character 15% of their CP total, but costs a 25pt character 60% of theirs, so proportionally 4x more expensive.

Only it's not like taxes, the presumption is a 25pt character is and should be 4x less able to "do stuff" as compared to a 100 pt character.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Real people don't gain points at a rate of 200 hours = 1 character points. They may gain them much faster over dramatic periods in their lives and they might be static or deteriorate during other periods.

Playing board games as a social activity, with no actual desire to win, let alone any motivation to develop your skill competatively, will usually result in skills plateauing out pretty quickly. Once you know the rules, you aren't getting any better, not unless it somehow matters enough to you* that you analyse your play and that of your opponents, making notes of all mistakes for future reference.

Most PCs in RPGs are effectively superheroes, even if they have no abilities beyond the RAW, in that rules for learning skills and adding abilities usually assume that they can mantain the kind of intense focus of which humans are occasionally capable througout their entire careers, continuing to learn new things and develop their areas of expertise without ever settling into a routine where they mentally check out most of the time. Like normal people.

Normal people learn their job skills well enough to be fairly comfortable at their daily tasks and then their advancement slows to a crawl, and in some cases, actually stops entirely, sometimes to the point that failing to follow new development results in effective skill penalties. Hobby skills may be learned to awesome levels, but usually aren't, because most people spend their free time idly wasting time, not actively trying to learn new things.

*Which, to me, at least, is entirely incompatible with playing board games for fun. Darts, pool, board games, card games, those are all valid things to play socially, but I don't find any of them interesting enough in themselves to want to focus any part of my attention on them. The moment winning the game you are playing becomes more important to you than the conversation and socialisation going on around it, you've become the guy ruining something fun by taking it too seriously.

Yep +1 on that, also if nothing else even if you do play to win on games night, to win you only need to beat the people you are playing.