Changing advantage cost to suit campaigns

[rpd]

It's accepted that the GM can charge more or less for an advantage if they feel it makes sense for their campaigns. Do you find yourself doing this, and if so which advantages? I try to stick to the costs list in the basic set but there are some advantages where I find the listed cost doesn't make sense for the campaigns I run. My main one is Immunity to Disease. On paper it sounds good but really, how often do you see players getting sick in most games? Look at the campaign logs for Facets that are posted on here. This a game about dimension hoppers who travel to parallel words in the 1800's and 1700's. Realistically it would make sense if they had problems with diseases in these world that they've never come across and have no immunity to. But it just doesn't come up during the game really at all.

I usually charge about 5 cp for this advantage. It's not that it's useless, but for most games It's just way overpriced at 15 cp. For that cost you can get Empathy or Combat Reflexes. In terms of relevance and usefulness Immunity to disease isn't in the same league.

I forget where I read it but I've seen an article talking about doing the same for Unaging, which I agree with. How many games last long enough where this is worth 15 cp? Can you guys think for any other examples?

[awesomenessofme1]

Regrowth is just objectively overpriced. That's not really a "to suit campaigns" issue, but I'd never charge 40 points for it.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by rpd

It's accepted that the GM can charge more or less for an advantage if they feel it makes sense for their campaigns. Do you find yourself doing this, ?

No, I'd find myself cogitating about hypothetical balance issues much more often than I supervise chargen. Likely as not I'd see no PCs taking the the Traits i agonized over too.

[pestigor]

I try to never come to this point. Well before the first invite or suggestion of "Hey, I'm running a Gurps game, you want in?" I've figured out the sort of tone I'm shooting for and then I talk to the players and see what they're expecting and if something like, "I'm running a less cinematic game with bleeding, shock and disease RAW" is said, then that advantage is worth every penny (and wouldn't be allowed in the campaign probably) but if I was putting a game together that was my impression of the main themes in lets say Krull, then I'd tell a player that wanted to take it that it isn't really necessary as I'm not really using those rules.

Everything I put together has only one goal and that goal is to be run, I don't bother with hypothetical or theory crafting, I also don't game with people that micromanage their CP...sometimes I don't even bother with CP, we all talk about what it is we want to play and we go forward.

Caveat: I refuse to run at conventions and for people I haven't vetted.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by pestigor

I try to never come to this point. Well before the first invite or suggestion of "Hey, I'm running a Gurps game, you want in?" I've figured out the sort of tone I'm shooting for and then I talk to the players and see what they're expecting and if something like, "I'm running a less cinematic game with bleeding, shock and disease RAW" is said, then that advantage is worth every penny (and wouldn't be allowed in the campaign probably)

Immunity to Disease _is_ Exotic. It's intended to be used only in a few sorts of games. Resistant +8 v. Disease is usually available by RAW and is usually 98% as good at a muhc lower price.

[ericthered]

I tinker with costs a fair bit, but I'm more likely to change attribute costs than advantage costs. I'm also more likely to drop costs to encourage a trait to be played than to raise it.



Right now I'm running an Ultra-tech game where TK and DR have lowered costs so they can compete with the high weapons values. Its a psi-centered game, and one player did take both.



In the past for a realm management game I've declared that social advantages are free, like rank, allies, and wealth, but that's "free", not "lowered cost"


In ultratech games I often offer extreme discounts on racial templates, including genetic engineering. If you can replicate the effects with gear (including power armor), I usually charge from 5 to 20 points for the whole thing. I ran a game a while back about ultra-tech detectives on an "Artifact Rush" planet, and a lot of people played Snow-Tiger People with +5 ST, temperature tolerance, natural weapons, and animalistic senses for 20 points.



So I think I tinker with points and offer free or discounted stuff in at least half of the games I play. Usually its about directing people in directions I want to see play.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by rpd

It's accepted that the GM can charge more or less for an advantage if they feel it makes sense for their campaigns. Do you find yourself doing this, and if so which advantages? I try to stick to the costs list in the basic set but there are some advantages where I find the listed cost doesn't make sense for the campaigns I run. My main one is Immunity to Disease. On paper it sounds good but really, how often do you see players getting sick in most games? Look at the campaign logs for Facets that are posted on here. This a game about dimension hoppers who travel to parallel words in the 1800's and 1700's. Realistically it would make sense if they had problems with diseases in these world that they've never come across and have no immunity to. But it just doesn't come up during the game really at all.

I usually charge about 5 cp for this advantage. It's not that it's useless, but for most games It's just way overpriced at 15 cp. For that cost you can get Empathy or Combat Reflexes. In terms of relevance and usefulness Immunity to disease isn't in the same league.

I forget where I read it but I've seen an article talking about doing the same for Unaging, which I agree with. How many games last long enough where this is worth 15 cp? Can you guys think for any other examples?

I tend to set an "allowed or not" rule, rather than a you can have it but it will cost more. If you dont use the disease mechanics then just say you cant have disease immunity advantage. If later you want to use it then do it, even if it comes up once its not worth spending advantage points on it. I usually use poisons and diseases to drive a story line, so I wouldn't allow a flat immunity anyway cause it makes a plot lines potentially boring and undramatic.

As others have said, certain advantages would completely offset the world you are constructing, at any cost. At the same time some would be largely useless. Psionics is a perfect example. If no one in the world has or uses Psionics then the one PC that does have even a small amount has great potential to be abused I simply wouldn't allow it. Likewise I would tell a PC flat out that spending points on resistance to psionics would be a waste because they do not factor into the game world as its currently set up and I have no intention of using Psionics except in an utterly unique and exotic encounter that would be more cinematic or plot driven than naturally occurring in the world.

If you as GM want to deal with the complications of a specific advantage then allow it. Raising the price is akin to telling a player "this is something desirable because I already know that having it is going to be very expensive to offset the advantage you will have". You could also compensate on the backend to get the flavor you want, Monsters and Bad Guys need not be limited to a specific CP pool to get the effect you want.

_______________________________________________

As for Unaging specifically thats more an issue of potential experience PRE-adventure than at the start. Also it would only factor in if the char knew about it. Yes I agree unless its somehow thematically appropriate or uniquely required its not really useful to a PC (with limited life expectancy or only a few months in real time it wouldnt be a huge factor generally).

I used an NPC that I had originally written as a PC experiment, that had extremely slow aging. I think it was 5x slower than normal. When he looked 10 he was actually 50 and had all the experience in a 10yr old body. He knew he was aging eventually, he knew that he was changing slowly but it cause some disadvantages that still follow him. In terms of a short adventure set (3-5 sessions) its pretty pointless unless it explains a vast amount of skills in a player thats still fit enough to adventure. Other than that I dont think I have ever used it or had it used.

If a PC wants to take it, Im just up front that it will likely have little impact on the game play. It doesnt affect me as the GM.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by bocephus

If you as GM want to deal with the complications of a specific advantage then allow it. Raising the price is akin to telling a player "this is something desirable because I already know that having it is going to be very expensive to offset the advantage you will have". You could also compensate on the backend to get the flavor you want, Monsters and Bad Guys need not be limited to a specific CP pool to get the effect you want.

For that case in particular the RAW method is to charge for Unusual Form.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by rpd

It's accepted that the GM can charge more or less for an advantage if they feel it makes sense for their campaigns. Do you find yourself doing this, and if so which advantages?

In the Five Earths campaign in my .sig, I reduced the cost of Magery 0 to 1 point (basically a perk, called Active Thoughtform Creation or Active Thoughtform Generation), to display how common it is in the setting. I think that's the only time I've done that for a specific setting, but I think I've also used some nearly-official houserules (like, from Kromm or PK) that reduce the costs of overpriced advantages.

[rpd]

Originally Posted by bocephus

I tend to set an "allowed or not" rule, rather than a you can have it but it will cost more. If you dont use the disease mechanics then just say you cant have disease immunity advantage.

I do that myself when I have a solid reason to, such as your example of an advantage not fitting the game world we're in at the moment. I just find that some advantages tend to be rarely picked by my players because they're not worth the points in our games. As I said it's not that Immunity to Disease is useless, it comes in handy occasionally. But not enough to justify 15 cp. If I adjust the point cost in cases like this then it tends to encourage players taking a wider range of advantages, which leads to more diverse characters.