Alternate study hours

[Keampe]

The study rules as written are a flat 200/cp which means that skills very quickly go to 800 hours per skill level. There are some alternates in Social Engineering 2, but they just play around with how many hours you get, not how many it take to raise a skill, so why not look at that?

Just to clarify I would not use this in a Super, Cinematic or High Power game. The standard rules are just fine for those.

What would happen in a game where the only way to raise skills (or anything, really) was through study hours and it took 50 hours times the total you are going for? Example: you have 2 cp in a skill, so to raise that to 3 would require (50 X 3) = 150 hours of study. The overall hours per point even out to standard at 7cp (1400 hour total) and from there it increases. The standard 200 hour per would be used for anything but skills and assume fairly generous study time allowed.

So, my questions
- What effect would this have on the game?
- If you were to add experience cp to the game, how many hours would each point be worth? There is a option in SE 2 for each point to be worth half a level but that might be too much, or too little, I'm unsure.

Thoughts?

- Shane

[Stormcrow]

What's the point? Why does 200 hours per character point seem quick? What problem are you trying to solve?

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Some thoughts off the top of my head:

1) Training CP can no longer be calculated as a fairly simple lump sum.
2) It is much easier to be "sufficiently skilled" in a broad range of skills, than to be highly-skilled in a few skills.
3) Long-lived races might tend to be intense generalists; with very high to moderate skill in a broad range of areas.
3a) A member of a long-lived race who does specialize, is still terrifying, but not quite so "defeat incarnate".
4) Shorter-lived races might find it more profitable to specialize, as they, comparatively, don't have that long to pick up skills.

[Keampe]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

What's the point? Why does 200 hours per character point seem quick? What problem are you trying to solve?

200 hours isn't quick - You'll note that beginning skills (up to 6cp) are quicker by this method. The problem is high skills being easily learnable as once you get to 4cp per level learning skills is linear and I'd like it to be more geometric. I also want low skills to be learnable fairly quickly in game and I don't want to do it by fiat. I want a mechanistic approach.

- Shane

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Keampe

200 hours isn't quick - You'll note that beginning skills (up to 6cp) are quicker by this method. The problem is high skills being easily learnable as once you get to 4cp per level learning skills is linear and I'd like it to be more geometric. I also want low skills to be learnable fairly quickly in game and I don't want to do it by fiat. I want a mechanistic approach.

- Shane

An alternative might be to restructure skill costs, using the same triangular numbers approach:

1. Increase: [1], Total: [1]
2. Increase: [2], Total: [3]
3. Increase: [3], Total: [6]
4. Increase: [4], Total: [10]
5. Increase: [5], Total: [15]

So, getting enough skill to ignore the penalty for aiming at the eye, would require [45]. If you use this idea, I would recommend also using non-linear costs for at least some attributes.

That being said, CP are not linear, so this idea breaks current CP costs.

[Keampe]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

An alternative might be to restructure skill costs, using the same triangular numbers approach:

1. Increase: [1], Total: [1]
2. Increase: [2], Total: [3]
3. Increase: [3], Total: [6]
4. Increase: [4], Total: [10]
5. Increase: [5], Total: [15]

So, getting enough skill to ignore the penalty for aiming at the eye, would require [45]. If you use this idea, I would recommend also using non-linear costs for at least some attributes.

That being said, CP are not linear, so this idea breaks current CP costs.

Not a bad idea, but the problem with messing with the CP costs for skills is the very soon it becomes better to raise the attribute instead. Now, there is a limit to that, but it's pretty high. I was looking at something like this earlier. :)

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

Some thoughts off the top of my head:

1) Training CP can no longer be calculated as a fairly simple lump sum.
2) It is much easier to be "sufficiently skilled" in a broad range of skills, than to be highly-skilled in a few skills.
3) Long-lived races might tend to be intense generalists; with very high to moderate skill in a broad range of areas.
3a) A member of a long-lived race who does specialize, is still terrifying, but not quite so "defeat incarnate".
4) Shorter-lived races might find it more profitable to specialize, as they, comparatively, don't have that long to pick up skills.

1) True. I'd have to figure the hours gained first and divide the hours up amongst the skills trained - kind of like using hours as a form of exp.

2) True, and good from my perspective. Allows characters to become competent without overwhelming the specialists.

3) Interesting.... I'd have thought that the long lived races would be where you'd get the hyper competence...
3a) I'd expect this.

4) Hadn't considered shorter lived races. True experts might be harder to come by, or it might be all they do. Have to think on that - although there aren't many races like this.

Thanks! Lots to think about.
- Shane

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Keampe

3) Interesting.... I'd have thought that the long lived races would be where you'd get the hyper competence...
3a) I'd expect this.

4) Hadn't considered shorter lived races. True experts might be harder to come by, or it might be all they do. Have to think on that - although there aren't many races like this.

Thanks! Lots to think about.
- Shane

3) The thing about long-lived hyper-competence, is that, well, even the greatest swordself can die from falling off a cliff, so it's good to learn how to climb well... might end up facing a distant ranged attacker, so should learn how to use the bow... spent a few decades on a sailing ship, and so picked up shiphanding and marine-related skills there... learned to cook well, because sometimes they were on their own, or couldn't trust the local food... had to fight a duel to first blood with spears once, and that was embarrassing... etc.

4) The thing is, a human probably (almost certainly) isn't going to beat said swordself at swords... but if they specialize in spears, they'll probably have a decent chance.

[Keampe]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

3) The thing about long-lived hyper-competence, is that, well, even the greatest swordself can die from falling off a cliff, so it's good to learn how to climb well... might end up facing a distant ranged attacker, so should learn how to use the bow... spent a few decades on a sailing ship, and so picked up shiphanding and marine-related skills there... learned to cook well, because sometimes they were on their own, or couldn't trust the local food... had to fight a duel to first blood with spears once, and that was embarrassing... etc.

4) The thing is, a human probably (almost certainly) isn't going to beat said swordself at swords... but if they specialize in spears, they'll probably have a decent chance.

Yep, and if the poor schlub who has to fight the swordself gets a critical - not allowing a defense - that master might just die from that. Have enough fights and luck rules. Thing is, though, if I'm using the standard 200 hour per, that swordself would be much better and less able to learn the other skills when needed - the high skills would be cheaper and the low skills more expensive in terms of hours. It's hard to see a swordself learning cooking to a high skill level unless it became an interest.

Speaking of which - what do you consider high skill/low skill in terms of CP? Where would you put the break point?

- Shane

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Keampe

Yep, and if the poor schlub who has to fight the swordself gets a critical - not allowing a defense - that master might just die from that. Have enough fights and luck rules. Thing is, though, if I'm using the standard 200 hour per, that swordself would be much better and less able to learn the other skills when needed - the high skills would be cheaper and the low skills more expensive in terms of hours. It's hard to see a swordself learning cooking to a high skill level unless it became an interest.

I can see a GURPS hack out of this; do away with CP, and turn "experience point" CPs into "effective hours". One game session might give 0-1,000 "exerpience hours", for example, instead of 0-5 CP.

Originally Posted by Keampe

Speaking of which - what do you consider high skill/low skill in terms of CP? Where would you put the break point?

- Shane

I would say the "definite tipping point" of "high skill" is at 19-, because that's when you can attack the eye with a 50% chance of an accurate attack. You could argue earlier skill levels, and you could definitely argue later, but I think it's hard to argue against "50% chance to stab them in the eye if they don't defend."