Resolved,There is no point to statting up anything that is not a PC

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

The problem is that points measure utility to PCs. Take, for example, the "once only" limitation, introduced by GURPS Supers. Put it on an advantage, and you divide the value by 5, but you can only ever use it once, basically. For a PC, that's a huge limiting factor - PCs are expected to have continuity, to keep adventuring, so an ability you can only ever use the one time is not worth nearly as much. But, say I have a villian with 5 100-point abilities, and a second villian, with the same 5 100-point abilities, except each one has One Use Only applied. If points are a good measure of enemy power, then the second villian should be one fifth as effective as the first. But, in practice, that's not the case. Most big powers like that will probably only be useful once per combat anyway, so the fact that the second villian will never use them again is only relevant if either villian comes back again.

This ignores motivations from the so-called-villains' POV. Generically and universally speaking, there is no inherent dichotomy between the protagonists' and the antagonists' character development so the antagonists have no particular relief from anxiety that they will expend their single-use powers at a suboptimal time, and will have as much motivation to hold back and thus get less use from their reduced-value abilities as the PCs would.

GURPS has a strong design principle and a stated editorial policy of avoiding rules apartheid for PCs vs NPCs and justly so because it is totally up to the money-paying base if they want to play traditional PCs roles or be the adversaries, or something else unconventional. I suppose this includes playing games where the adversaries are all one-dimensional figures of EEEEEVIL who do things only because the plot requires it, but that's not a good reason to give that kind of char build advice out all the time.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by copeab

Although ...

There is something to be said to statting something up from a purely academic perspective. Building oddities solely as an exercise can help when it comes to later having to design an oddity where it *does* have to be statted. Simply put, there is value in practice.

Which is why I don't ask people how I should go about designing my stretching character who can extrude and control nanoscale tentacles that can reach right between molecules, complete with point costs. If I'm doing it for the exercise, then asking other people to do it for me defeats the purpose.

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Which is why I don't ask people how I should go about designing my stretching character who can extrude and control nanoscale tentacles that can reach right between molecults, complete with point costs. If I'm doing it for the exercise, then asking other people to do it for me defeats the purpose.

Unless you want to get a collective brainstorm going.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

GURPS has a strong design principle and a stated editorial policy of avoiding rules apartheid for PCs vs NPCs and justly so because it is totally up to the money-paying base if they want to play traditional PCs roles or be the adversaries, or something else unconventional. I suppose this includes playing games where the adversaries are all one-dimensional figures of EEEEEVIL who do things only because the plot requires it, but that's not a good reason to give that kind of char build advice out all the time.

That is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

I suppose the reply to that should be something along the lines of:

Just because you favor some sort of boardgame style RPG with unimaginative GMs and players running on rails, doesn't mean you need to cast aspersions of those of us who prefer running imaginative roleplaying games run by real GMs who actually are capable of winging details in their setting for good gaming verisimilitude.

Yeah, so there. ;p *grin*

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In my experience, knowing the tactical variables, including Attributes and skills, helps in the process of eyeballing. Knowing the total point value adds zero information to that.

The total point value alone may not, but on the way to calculating that value, you accumulate total points spent on skills for instance that does impact how a PC has spent his life and serves as a check on excessive or just plain unconsidered builds.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

The total point value alone may not, but on the way to calculating that value, you accumulate total points spent on skills for instance that does impact how a PC has spent his life and serves as a check on excessive or just plain unconsidered builds.

Often that's indicative that the PC's stats weren't raised appropriately to reflect their training.
So as an example, if someone has 8 skills where they spent 8+ points on, that's an indication that the underlying stat should be much higher from all that training, thereby reducing the skill points to balance.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

The point is, though, that "weird" abilities only need to be statted out using the character creation rules when their point cost is relevant.

This is not correct. For example, regardless of ultimate costs, a "weird" defensive ability that includes Insubstantiality will make the presence or absence of the Affects Insubstantial enhancement in the builds of attack abilities in the game important, even if neither sort of ability will be paid for from a limited pool of character points.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by copeab

You say this as if fudging is a bad thing and should be discouraged.

If we agree to play a game where the outcome depends on the roll of the dice, and you unilaterally decide to misrepresent the true result in favor of one more to your liking, you are lying and cheating. These are bad things and should be discouraged.

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

If we agree to play a game where the outcome depends on the roll of the dice

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My games are partially based on the roll of the dice, and partially based on how everyone plays there role.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

you unilaterally decide to misrepresent the true result in favor of one more to your liking, you are lying and cheating. These are bad things and should be discouraged.

Eh. My mileage obviously varies. I'm more than happy to toss out a crappy roll in order to move the story in a fun and exciting direction.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Unlikely, since people commenting on 'you don't need stats' generally disagree with your definition of game-breaking.

If you have some more effective means in mind, I'd be happy to listen.