Ravens N' Pennies - GURPS Content Posts

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

I think I get a usecase for this. If you got Injury Tolerance, Damage Reduction, then a level of this. Those 1 point injuries become 0. So you could, in effect make someone who is quite immune to damage below a certain threshhold with that combo.

for example 300 points for Injury Tolerance (DR/100) + 100 points for IR = 400 points to negative up to 1000 points of injury.

Yeah, though it would be a lot cheaper than IT:DR +50% Cosmic.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Seems extremely situational, but potentially pretty neat

Like most exotic advantages. :-0

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

I think I get a usecase for this. If you got Injury Tolerance, Damage Reduction, then a level of this. Those 1 point injuries become 0. So you could, in effect make someone who is quite immune to damage below a certain threshhold with that combo.

for example 300 points for Injury Tolerance (DR/100) + 100 points for IR = 400 points to negative up to 1000 points of injury.

Originally Posted by Refplace

Yeah, though it would be a lot cheaper than IT:DR +50% Cosmic.

Yeah, there are a lot of ways you can go about getting "invulnerability" in GURPS. This is one of those avenues.

[Christopher R. Rice]

GURPS101: Illusion-Casting

Like my previous advantage deconstructions I talk about the components of Illusion and what modifiers help you do what, while adding a few of my own.

(Sorry, I'm late - was prepping D-Team some and got caught up. Going to bed. Exhausted as hell. Hope you guys enjoy this.)

[Christopher R. Rice]

Gamemaster's Guidepost: Building Player Characters to the Concept

Point Budget: Do not try and bend the game to your point budget. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
GM: What truth?
Point Budget: There is no point budget.
GM: There is no point budget?
Point Budget: Then you'll see, that it is not the point budget that bends, it is only yourself.

So, this might seem heretical...but point budgets don't matter. There. I said it. Today's GURPSDay post is provides some advice for building a player character to a concept vs. on a point budget.

[Kalzazz]

I usually start with a single core notion and then somehow the point budget and the core notion interact until a character emerges by trying to do X with Y

Of course about half the time the finished character might or might not resemble the original core notion, and/or may require CP and loot through adventuring to reach it

My current favorite character was based off a DanHoward post about expert tailoring alleviating layered armor penalty, so the core concept was 'heavy, expertly tailored layered armor is cool!'

Once you have the core concept, you end up with challenges to meet and such
1. Heavy layered armor is heavy, the character probably shouldn't be immobile
2. Heavy layered expertly tailored armor is expensive! The character should somehow possess it
3. Heavy layered armor is not inherently going to do anything useful for the party. The character should be useful
4. Heavy layered armor can be worn chilling on the couch. The character should probably adventure and needs some reasoning

I imagine I would have ended up with a crazy different character following your approach

Given that my resultant character under my approach didn't actually fulfill my core concept until like 20 sessions into the campaign . . . . you may be onto something

As much as I tend to utterly detest GURPS chargen, I will grudgingly under torture admit you can end up with some very cool results at time

[GodBeastX]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Point Budget: Do not try and bend the game to your point budget. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
GM: What truth?
Point Budget: There is no point budget.
GM: There is no point budget?
Point Budget: Then you'll see, that it is not the point budget that bends, it is only yourself.

So, this might seem heretical...but point budgets don't matter. There. I said it.

*High fives GD*

[Celti]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

So, this might seem heretical...but point budgets don't matter. There. I said it.

I've known that one for years. Never have been able to convince certain members of my gaming group, though...

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I usually start with a single core notion and then somehow the point budget and the core notion interact until a character emerges by trying to do X with Y

Of course about half the time the finished character might or might not resemble the original core notion, and/or may require CP and loot through adventuring to reach it

My current favorite character was based off a DanHoward post about expert tailoring alleviating layered armor penalty, so the core concept was 'heavy, expertly tailored layered armor is cool!'

Once you have the core concept, you end up with challenges to meet and such
1. Heavy layered armor is heavy, the character probably shouldn't be immobile
2. Heavy layered expertly tailored armor is expensive! The character should somehow possess it
3. Heavy layered armor is not inherently going to do anything useful for the party. The character should be useful
4. Heavy layered armor can be worn chilling on the couch. The character should probably adventure and needs some reasoning

I imagine I would have ended up with a crazy different character following your approach

Given that my resultant character under my approach didn't actually fulfill my core concept until like 20 sessions into the campaign . . . . you may be onto something

As much as I tend to utterly detest GURPS chargen, I will grudgingly under torture admit you can end up with some very cool results at time

It does take a while. Hell, I gave my D-Team guys a month lead time so that I could make sure EVERYONE was done and all avenues of creation were explored.

Also, it's nice to know that there are similiar, but different trains of thought out there for this process. :-)

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

*High fives GD*

That's how we does it!

Originally Posted by Celti

I've known that one for years. Never have been able to convince certain members of my gaming group, though...

It's true. I'm running several games right now that uses these guidelines. Haven't had a player complain yet. You just gotta make sure the challenges are appropriate to the character AND the player.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Gamemaster's Guidepost: Building Player Characters to the Concept

Point Budget: Do not try and bend the game to your point budget. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
GM: What truth?
Point Budget: There is no point budget.
GM: There is no point budget?
Point Budget: Then you'll see, that it is not the point budget that bends, it is only yourself.

So, this might seem heretical...but point budgets don't matter. There. I said it. Today's GURPSDay post is provides some advice for building a player character to a concept vs. on a point budget.

I am kind of 50/50 on this one of your posts (not to say it is not well written, just 'do I agree with it').

On the one hand;
I am strongly of the opinion that any CONCEPT can be built in 300 points, once you have the concept, its then just a matter of scale.

IE- A player says 'I want to play superman'- superman is a concept for a flying, tough, laser/freezing, penetrating vision hero.

You can do that in 300 points, he might be more 'initial print' superman, then the golden age version of himself able to warp time by flying around the sun and being completely indestructable, but you'll be playing someone who meets the concept of the hero.

Mating concept->point budget is a good challenge that I find can really help a character turn from concept to playable.

However!

Sometimes some players are just terrible at translating concept->PC and/or there may be roleplaying concerns for them that may be of issue.

I remember a friend of mine was just BAD at roleplaying in general- I don't think he disliked it, he was just bad at the execution (forever forgetting PC abilities, not able to commit sheet to memory, did not think any decisions through, etc)- eventually I would just start putting 'played by enrico -150' on his sheets and spend those points on survivability. In theory he was a full 150 points stronger than anyone else in the party, but no one minded because he did not utilize that power to the same effect that other players would achieve with the 150 less.

So in my opinion it is less about the concept, and more about the player.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by starslayer

I am kind of 50/50 on this one of your posts (not to say its well written, just 'do I agree with it').

On the one hand;
I am strongly of the opinion that any CONCEPT can be built in 300 points, once you have the concept, its then just a matter of scale.

IE- A player says 'I want to play superman'- superman is a concept for a flying, tough, laser/freezing, penetrating vision hero.

You can do that in 300 points, he might be more 'initial print' superman, then the golden age version of himself able to warp time by flying around the sun and being completely indestructable, but you'll be playing someone who meets the concept of the hero.

Mating concept->point budget is a good challenge that I find can really help a character turn from concept to playable.

However!

Sometimes some players are just terrible at translating concept->PC and/or there may be roleplaying concerns for them that may be of issue.

I remember a friend of mine was just BAD at roleplaying in general- I don't think he disliked it, he was just bad at the execution (forever forgetting PC abilities, not able to commit sheet to memory, did not think any decisions through, etc)- eventually I would just start putting 'played by enrico -150' on his sheets and spend those points on survivability. In theory he was a full 150 points stronger than anyone else in the party, but no one minded because he did not utilize that power to the same effect that other players would achieve with the 150 less.

So in my opinion it is less about the concept, and more about the player.

I get what you're saying, but this has less to do with "I want to create this concept how I envision it" and more "I want to create a version of this concept." These are two different, but related things: "I, as the GM, want to bring your vision to life" vs. "I, as the GM, like your idea, but would like it to better conform to my vision of the campaign." The first is very player facing, while the second is a compromise - it's still player facing, but it places the GM's vision of the game before the players. This is not a bad thing! Some players (as you note) just have no innate design philosophy or RPing experience. The GM has to take a firm hand (in a different way).

While other players have plenty of both. They become less a player and more a co-GM in a world you create together. That's what this is about. It's about building the world in such a way that any player concept is viable. There is simply no other way to get the dynamic you see in most fictional mediums. The GM must be willing to say "A, you have B points, while C, you have D points." People aren't built on the same points. That's an artificial construct created for RPGs that simulate a level playing field. (Obviously.) If you can move past that construct it opens up a lot of possibilities for gaming that would otherwise not be possible.

As an aside, this won't work for all gaming groups. You need a bunch of people that don't care about point values and are looking to have fun. I know this first hand because I had two players once who were looking at point values and made things messy. I eventually had to ditch them. Once I did that my games became a helluva lot more fun.