Perks, can we have too many?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

The presentation could probably be made less intimidating by presenting them somewhat less compactly and separating out the choices from the fixed portions; the compact presentation makes sense to manage page count, but may not be the most accessible for use, especially by new players.

If you toss the book at them and say "make a character!" sure. But if you make the character with them, you shouldn't have a problem. At least, I don't.

"ST is this, DX is that, IQ is this, blah blah. You get these advantages, and now you have to choose X points from this small, easy list. Still need some help? Well, for your concept, I rather like this advantage and that one. I see you're eying that one over there, well, we can do this and that, how about that?"

It's MUCH easier than sifting through the entire book, and it's no harder than making a D&D character, IMO.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Too many options? Um, nope.

Official options are good, because they empower players, in that the burden of explaining why a given option should not be allowed lies on the GM, rather than a player having to explain why a non-official option should be allowed.

The problem with Perks is that there are a whole lot of them. This causes organizational difficulties.

A big and continually expanded index of official (i.e. Kromm-sanctioned) Perks, sorted by category, with each Perk placed in multiple categories, would solve the problem, though.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

It boils down to how many you want to integrate, I suppose. It's best if players know their PC concepts first, then see if there are any mechanical benefits based on that they want for sure.

That's probably a good idea.

I'll always defend a player's freedom to start a character concept with a single high-cost Advantage, and then build on top of that, but if a player starts with a very low-cost trait, e.g. a Perk, and takes it from there, then there's a fair chance that said low-cost trait should be a high-cost trait.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by DukeofDellot

Actually I'm having trouble convincing most of my friends to play GURPS due to how many options there are. It's a case by case on the player types.

Just to say, there is a problem with having too many options. It might be minor... and rarely noticeable... but it's there.

That's why templates were invented.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

(There are some exceptions to this rule: Noob dramatists are going to naturally fixate on all the kewl angst that their disads give them, even being disappointed if they turn out to be "free points," and they won't know all the details of their nitty gritty little powers. Still, the division is a good way for them to learn, and you should help players like that design their characters in broad, general ways, with things like Wild Card skills rather than Perks anyway)

There is also the issue of passive advantages.

I won't accept having to remind the GM that my character has Voice or Charisma, or Danger Sense, because there's a risk that doing so makes me look greedy (even though I'm only demanding to get what I've paid for). If he can't keep my character's capabilitistic individuality in mind without needing to be reminded, he's unfit.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

I'd say that's a human error, not a software issue.

Perhaps surprisingly, I disagree. Roleplaying gaming is a hobby for the intellectually gifted minority, so people who can't handle complex systems don't belong in it, but RPG designers can make their systems more accessible by organizing the information along sensible lines.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2

If they're going to do more Power-Ups, I hope they cover the other two areas of proliferation; Talents and Wildcard skills. Those have been running amok almost as much as Perks - I've had to create cheat sheets to keep up with them.

More official and Kromm-sanctioned Talents would be good, but don't overlook more variants of Blessed. Everybody else already does.

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

There is also the issue of passive advantages.

I won't accept having to remind the GM that my character has Voice or Charisma, or Danger Sense, because there's a risk that doing so makes me look greedy (even though I'm only demanding to get what I've paid for). If he can't keep my character's capabilitistic individuality in mind without needing to be reminded, he's unfit.

Or, maybe he is a little busy running the villians, the NPCs, the world setting, the atmosphere, interpreting rules, familiars, aliens, robots, etc. and maybe, he might feel that it wouldn't be too much trouble for the player to keep track of a few aspects of his/her own character to take a little of the burden off him.

just a thought....

[Figleaf23]

For forum's sake, I provide this link to a related discussion:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...ferating+perks

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

For forum's sake, I provide this link to a related discussion:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...ferating+perks

Ah, I did have a nagging feeling the issue was brought up before. Damn, too late now.

Btw, I think a good "solution" would be something like the Skill Categories pdf, which groups skills into logical if overlapping (not a bad thing) categories.

Once enough of them are out there, I think that'd help remember all your options and help character creation.

Btw, I don't think "rpg is for an elite intellectual minority". We should move away from that stance, 4e does this well, it's streamlined in a way you can select how complex you want to make it.

I have made custom, modular templates to great sucess. They're basically 20 or 30-point packs that players can slap together to make a character. Big hit with my family who doesn't know GURPS and doesn't have the time to learn, but loves playing it all the same.