Skills and Techniques are too expensive

[Jareth Valar]

Personally, the only real problem I have with skill costs is that there is no difference in cost between getting my skill from 1 above Att to 10 above Att. It's the same cost, even though the effort needed to increase ones ability that far above, IMHO, should definitely cost more.

We are discussing in our game that skills cost up to Att is per normal and for every rank above Att costs 1 CP more than normal (Att+1 costs 1 more, Att +2 costs 2 more, etc), though this is still in the discussion stage ATM.

As for Att over Skill, IMHO, it's up to the GM to set the rules and regulations in game. Our GM is starting her campaign with an Att limit of 14 to start and Skill limit of 16. We are using KTOS and options discussed by Kromm (and others) on a thread(s) about more realistic characters (don't have the link ATM but can post later if anyone is interested) so all attributes are going to be soft capped at 15 and hard capped at 16. Skills will be capped at Att +10 (though I doubt anyone will ever even try to get that high)

We discussed at length before character creation what was expected from attributes and skills. We were all agreed that attributes were not going to be touched often as skills are what most people get better at, regardless of the mathematical cost effectiveness.

On option it to just make attributes harder to increase, not necessarily more expensive. A guideline mentioned in the book is approximately 200 hrs. of training per CP (though we use this mostly in reverse...200 hrs of training will get you 1 CP). Make it where attributes take 1000 hrs. or some other in-game mechanical hoops that have to jumped through to make Skills a much more attractive option even though it would be more "efficient" to raise an attribute.

Personally I think there is a big difference between "efficiency" and munchkin-math.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I'm confused. What do character point costs have to do with the representation of the world? As I understand them, they're entirely about character creation.

The characters are a feature of the world, aren't they?

If the rules system is such that it's less efficient pointwise to build a character whose skill greatly exceeds the primary stat it's based on, such characters will be comparatively rare. Since I tend to think such characters are usually implausible, I think their being rare is a good thing.

For example, in my hypothetical case, the rule I propose would mean that a character with IQ 8 could have Chemistry-8 for 4 points, Chemistry-9 for 8, Chemistry-10 for 16, Chemistry-11 for 32, and Chemistry-12 for 64. Going to IQ 9 and Chemistry-12 would save 12 points, and would be much more likely; going to IQ 10 and Chemistry-12 would cost 4 points, which could probably be made up easily by the gains to other skills. So nearly all professional chemists would have IQ 10 or above. I think that makes better sense.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Some consider it desirable for sensible character builds at the power level of "normal people" to have some resemblance to real people.

What do you mean by "sensible" here? Do you mean incentivized by the character creation rules? I don't see why an IQ 8 character who purchases Chemistry-12 for sixteen points isn't sensible, but one who purchases it for thirty-two points is sensible.

Players will treat character points as a measure of usefulness. Traits that give more usefulness for a point spent will be incentivized, and traits that give less usefulness will be disincentivized. This is obvious if you imagine increasing or decreasing the cost of traits. If Combat Reflexes, for instance, cost forty-five points rather than fifteen, it would be less useful relative to the other options available for forty-five points. Opportunity costs are a thing.

By making something cost more, you disincentivize people from taking it. Is the idea to disincentivize people from making characters with high skill levels relative to their attributes?

[Kesendeja]

I solved alot of the problem by putting a cap on the attributes. You can only be so good at them, before you have to start focusing on skills.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

What do you mean by "sensible" here? Do you mean incentivized by the character creation rules?

I mean reasonably cost-effective within the character creation rules.

I don't see why an IQ 8 character who purchases Chemistry-12 for sixteen points isn't sensible, but one who purchases it for thirty-two points is sensible.

Neither of those seem sensible to me. People with substantially below-average intelligence rarely study difficult skills in the real world.

I'm not taking a position in this discussion, other than that I don't find the existing skill and technique rules annoying very often. My posting was just offering an explanation about the relationship between character point cost and the representation of the world.

[edk926]

If Attributes are capped, skills aren't too expensive at all.

Techniques are way too expensive though. If you want techniques to be used, one way around this is to simply have 'technique points' to go along with regular character points. They could be earned at the same rate, or they could be earned through successful technique use.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Neither of those seem sensible to me. People with substantially below-average intelligence rarely study difficult skills in the real world

I don't believe that "intelligence" works the way that it's being portrayed in this thread, but that's not even especially important in this case.

All you need to do is go look up children playing piano on YouTube to see lots of people with below-average intelligence who have studied a difficult skill.

The way humans become good at a skill is through practicing that skill. You can find countless children who have practiced and gotten good at a skill.

As GURPS would have it, children have below-average intelligence. This isn't how I would choose to model things. I think a learning disability should be its own separate thing. But if we're treating below-average intelligence as the default mental state of children, then it shouldn't cost more per level for my child character to know piano than it does for your adult character.

It doesn't make any sense to me that I should have to pay more points per level to know piano because I chose to play as a child. I'm struggling to understand what reasoning could support the rules charging those prices.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

As GURPS would have it, children have below-average intelligence. This isn't how I would choose to model things. I think a learning disability should be its own separate thing. But if we're treating below-average intelligence as the default mental state of children, then it shouldn't cost more per level for my child character to know piano than it does for your adult character.

That's kind of a side issue; it raises the question of how GURPS handles the abilities of children. The primary point was about how adults with IQ 8 compare to adults with IQ 10 or 12 in what skills they learn and what levels they attain. It's not all that common for GURPS parties to be made up partly of adults (mostly young adults) and partly of prepubescent children. (And if they were, under the RAW you're free to give your 9-year-old PC IQ 10, or 15, or whatever you have the points for.)

[martinl]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

One of the perennial problems with GURPS is that Skills and Techniques are too expensive compared to Attributes and Advantages.

I have 3 answers for this:

• Just go with it - it actually is subversively helpful. It turns out that high DX and high IQ are good models for a lot of cinematic heroes, so it facilitates play, even if it isn't very realistic.
• Make skills independent of stats. If you really really want fair costs for skills, just never (or rarely) bases them off of stats. Base skills off of 10. Pretty much every non-skill use of IQ and DX can be bought separately except flat stat rolls, and you can usually float those to something else relevant. PCs will in general be weaker for the same CP.
• CPs are the debil, just build to concept in conjunction with you GM. This is not as dangerous as it sounds, especially with the right players. The parts of GURPS that don't use CPs still work fine.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The primary point was about how adults with IQ 8 compare to adults with IQ 10 or 12 in what skills they learn and what levels they attain.

I thought it was about the incentives created by different character point prices. You want to discourage people from buying up skills directly by making it more costly to raise skills relative to attributes. This would have the effect of disincentivizing people from playing characters who have raised a single skill to a high level and encourage them to instead play characters who have raised an attribute as their method of achieving high skill levels.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your goal is to encourage players to make characters who match your understanding of the sorts of people real world learning produces?

You believe that real world people who end up being good at one mental skill tend to be good at doing mental skills in general, and the game rules should encourage you to build those sorts of characters, rather than having a pianist who is good at piano but not good at painting or surgery or mathematics, or similar types of characters. Am I kind of getting where you're coming from?