Can a Navy SEAL be made for 200 cps?

[Fnord-Fnairlane]

Originally Posted by copeab

By that reasoning, no Talents should exist, since they are covered by ST, DX, IQ or HT.

You missed the point completely. The reason combat and ninja talents shouldn't exist is because in the majority of games any combat talent will be far too cheap for the benefit it gives.

Originally Posted by copeab

Exactly where did I say a science game should be all (or most, even) research work? And I don't appreciate your implication that, if I run a science oriented game, I'm not roleplaying. Playing the crew of a scientific ship checking out a strange nebula is just as much roleplaying as is playing a barbarian horde slaughtering villagers. If all you want is hack'n'slash, fine, but don't belittle those who don't.

Star Trek is a potential roleplaying game. Spending 3 months digging a mars rover out of a sand dune by remote control isn't. You seem to be confusing real science with TV science.

Originally Posted by copeab

Yeah, I mean, most of a soldier's life is boring as hell, so who would ever want to play a soldier?

Not me, playing a soldier would be boring.

But I'd love to play an Air Force Special Forces major leading his team through a wormgate. Which bears as much resemblance to real soldiering as Buckaroo Banzai does to real science.

Originally Posted by copeab

So you don't think anyone wants to play characters like Gil Grissom or Greg House?

For the TV impaired, Gil Grissom is the team leader of the CSI TV show. I don't know who Greg House is (I'm pretty TV impaired myself). I'm sure a lot of people like playing mystery / investigative games. Each week, the CSI team are called to some strange and interesting crime scene, investigate the gruesome murder, find the clues, tease the geeks who run the machines that go "PING", and then kick down the door and arrest the bad guy. The CSI team is: Gil Grissom, the bug obsessed guy hiding the fact he is occasionally deaf; the cute but aging blonde ex-stripper single mom; the guy with the pathlogical gambling addiction who gets assigned to every case in a casino; and the really cute and looks to young to have graduated yet brunette with a complicated love life that has included both her male collegues. Back at the base, we have the geeky NPCs running the machines, who are shamelessly manipulated by the chicks. NB: I haven't watched the show in over a year, and Australia was probably behind to begin with, maybe things are differnt now.

All of which bears as much resemblance to being a police foresnsics officer as Indy does to a real Archeologist.

Again you're confusing fictional science to the real thing. As Kromm said, fictional science can be a great hook for games. It can even be a major part of the theme. But it is unlikely to be the source of conflict (duelling dissertations?), and will bear no resemblance to real science, which is boring. Nearly every real job is boring.

Originally Posted by copeab

You couldn't be more offensively condesending.

Sure I could, I'm barely trying. Where I come from, this is mild teasing, and you're having a sulky fit for the amusement of bystanders.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

You missed the point completely.

Or you didn't do a good job of making your point.

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

The reason combat and ninja talents shouldn't exist is because in the majority of games any combat talent will be far too cheap for the benefit it gives.Star Trek is a potential roleplaying game. Spending 3 months digging a mars rover out of a sand dune by remote control isn't. You seem to be confusing real science with TV science.

I'm not confusing them at all; I know the difference. You keep wanting to create a strawman by claiming I don't.

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

For the TV impaired, Gil Grissom is the team leader of the CSI TV show. I don't know who Greg House is (I'm pretty TV impaired myself).

A brilliant but abrasive doctor in the series _House_.

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

All of which bears as much resemblance to being a police foresnsics officer as Indy does to a real Archeologist.

So? The CSI's don't run around shooting people.

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

Again you're confusing fictional science to the real thing.

You can say this as much as you want, but that doesn't make it true. I think that a doctor desperately trying to find out what is killing his paitent is a valid conflict.

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

As Kromm said, fictional science can be a great hook for games. It can even be a major part of the theme. But it is unlikely to be the source of conflict (duelling dissertations?), and will bear no resemblance to real science, which is boring. Nearly every real job is boring.

Kromm isn't the last word on what is valid roleplaying.

And where do you keep coming up with this "real science" rant? RPG combat isn't real combat either.

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

Sure I could, I'm barely trying. Where I come from, this is mild teasing

Where I come from, you are being an ass.

Brandon

[Luther]

Originally Posted by copeab

Where I come from, you are being an ass.

Yep.

How silly can be this one-true way of roleplaying syndrome.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by copeab

So you don't think anyone wants to play characters like Gil Grissom or Greg House?

No doubt they do; they probably don't want to roleplay routine collection and analysis of data in great, mechanically supported, detail, the way that many people do want to play out, say, detailed combat.

Instead they probably want to use their skills to make the kind of amazing leaps to extraordinarily fast connections and resolutions of problems that action-oriented TV scientifically-talented characters tend to make.

Which is why CSI might make a good RPG, for instance, but ER probably wouldn't.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

Which is why CSI might make a good RPG, for instance, but ER probably wouldn't.

There is a CSI Computer game, but CSI, and CSI:Miami vertions.

BTW Gil Grissom, ise more a Modern day Shelock Holmes. Solving mystersy by paying close attention the evediace he finds. Just has his Science updated a bit.

oh Fnord-Fnairlane, you left two parts, Gil is also a "Profiler". and you Totaly skipped over Nick the other level 3 CSI, the Polite texan lad working hard to live up to goul to emulated his mentor Grissom.

[DAT]

Greeting,
To go back to the original topic of “is it possible to make a Navy Seal character on 200 pts,” I had the following idea.

I was thinking about what makes a Navy Seal, SAS Commando, or other Special Forces soldier. I think most people would agree it takes a combination of above average physical and mental attributes/characteristics (how much above average is an open question), dedication/commitment (which we are using willpower as a GURPs equivalent), and very intense training. The attributes/characteristics have direct equivalents in GURPs and dedication/commitment are either characteristics or advantages depending on GURPs 3e or 4e. My idea relates to the training.

Rather than reflect the intense training as a high skill level (with a corresponding high point cost), my idea is to reflect the intense training as a modest skill level (with a lower point cost) and being desensitized (at least partially) to stress/extreme conditions. So what this would mean in game terms is that the SEAL would perform the task (roll versus the skill) as if it were an ordinary routine task (possibly with a will roll to focus) and receive the +4 bonus, rather than at their straight skill level, even though they are being shot at/in a blizzard/at night/ etc. The skill degradation from the lack of training could first be reflected with reducing the bonus due to a reduction in the ability to focus or be desensitized to the stress/extreme conditions.

What do you think? Would it work? Is it playable?

Cheers,
…DAT…

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by DAT

So what this would mean in game terms is that the SEAL would perform the task (roll versus the skill) as if it were an ordinary routine task (possibly with a will roll to focus) and receive the +4 bonus, rather than at their straight skill level, even though they are being shot at/in a blizzard/at night/ etc. The skill degradation from the lack of training could first be reflected with reducing the bonus due to a reduction in the ability to focus or be desensitized to the stress/extreme conditions.

What do you think? Would it work? Is it playable?

That sounds really good, it could effectively work out to a Talent type Advantage for performing under stress...
Pick a certain number of skills, and you can perform them regardless of distraction. This would almost automatically include combat skills as well.

They go through intensive training to remain calm and able to do their job in situations where most people would be freaking. Actually, most military training involves driving routine into people's brain so deep that the automatic reaction to stress is to fall into ingrained response.

The concept is good, it's pretty realistic, the only drawback is that it'd be serious munchkin bait unless it's priced at 20+ per level.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

No doubt they do; they probably don't want to roleplay routine collection and analysis of data in great, mechanically supported, detail, the way that many people do want to play out, say, detailed combat.

Which would be relevant if I said that characters in science campaigns had to roleplay routine collection and analysis of data. However, I never said this or implied it. All I referenced was the balance of combat Talents in military games vs scientific Talents in science games. I made no explicit or implied conditions about either type of campaign.

Brandon

[Fnord-Fnairlane]

Originally Posted by copeab

A combat Talent in a military game is no more unbalancing than a science Talent in a scientific game.
Brandon

You're entitled to your opinion, and to run your games that way if you want. So far half a dozen people including Kromm have given well reasoned arguments as to why their opinions differ, and that Combat talents are intrinsicallly unbalanced.

No one has indicated that they agree with you about combat talents being reasonable.

How about you drop it?

Now, to be on-topic:

I thought someone had already suggested this, but can't find it on a quick re-read of the thread: Use Autohypnosis (or Visualisation - but that works less well due to the situation not being "as Visualised").

The ability to ignore penaties for exhaustion, injury and poor conditions that could be implied by Autohypnosis could be a large part of what makes Special Forces troops so effective.

On the Talent debate, I certainly think that sufficiently competitive environments are dominated by people with large doses of talent. Musical Ability seems common enough that those lacking it are almost excluded from making a professional career of music - perhaps because as a performance art, those who don't get the reaction bonus from a talent will never be a major success.

Motorsport is another example of an endeavor that seems to be completely dominated by those with natural ability. My father and I enter car rallies - he's been racing competitively for over 20 years. I've had the pleasure of watching some of the real race car drivers up close, or even been overtaken by them. There is a qualitative difference between the "real drivers" and those doing it for fun, and it isn't just high levels of driving skill. You could argue that the ability to swap car and race types and still do well is a function of good skill defaults - but when a motorcycle champion enters a car race and does substantially better than you might expect there's something odd going on. People like Fangio and Schumacher are not merely relying on skill, they have enormous talent.

I'd tend to think that many Special Forces troopers (maybe not all, but a high proportion) have some sort of "talent" - be it "Stalker" (ends up as the team sniper?) "Born Soldier" or "Born Leader". Selecting for the "Best of the Best of the Best, SAH!" will tend to limit you to naturally talented people.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Fnord-Fnairlane

You're entitled to your opinion, and to run your games that way if you want. So far half a dozen people including Kromm have given well reasoned arguments as to why their opinions differ, and that Combat talents are intrinsicallly unbalanced.

No one has indicated that they agree with you about combat talents being reasonable.

How about you drop it?

Congrats, you're the first person here I've felt the need to put on my Ignore List.

Brandon