07-19-2017, 07:20 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
|
Re: [House Rules] Technique System Overhaul
The last few campaigns I've played in, all Techniques were at half price (ie 1 point for +2 in the technique. If you needed a half point to finish buying off the last -1 of a technique, that got waived.
IE if the average technique is -5, it costs 1 point to take it to -3, and 2 points takes it to +0; it would go to -1, but since it would take a half-point to get it from -1 to 0, it gets "rounded up" to 0. BTW: Even under vanilla rules, taking multiple techniques is not necessarily sub optimal, even if you take e.g. 3. The thing is if multiple techniques can remove penalties on the same roll. So using your Flail to entangle in close combat while lying prone - that's three different techniques. I can actually get simultaneously useful techniques for Flail up to at least five (although that would be some pretty terrible circumstances to be in) but under vanilla costs that would be a bit much. Except. Except when e.g. training cost rules, limits on rate of skill advancement, and such are being used in a campaign. If it costs less money to learn a technique, or less time, that's attractive. If you simply are not allowed to raise your skill right now (can't find a teacher good enough, can't put more than 1 point per session in it, GM puts a hard cap of 20 points, or skill 20, or whatever in skills) then exploring techniques might be a serious consideration. Particularly if you've hit a hard ceiling like that points spent or absolute skill level cap - it's not inefficient if the "efficient" alternative is impossible. All of these are certainly a big thing in some kinds of campaign, where the GM wants to encourage breadth over depth. There's often a hard cap to attributes in these games too.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table A Wiki for my F2F Group A neglected GURPS blog |
07-19-2017, 09:34 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: [House Rules] Technique System Overhaul
Quote:
I have an observation to toss in. But first, a look at those problems (I've numbered them above): 1. This is the crux, and is the problem that interests me. 2. Certainly, some techniques may be over- or under-priced, though that's a problem with the definitions/scope of the individual techniques in question, not a problem with the techniques system itself. For GMs who don't want to muck with technique pricing, the solution is simply to adjust the effects of troublesome techniques so those better fit the cost. 3. Can't say I share that impression, though I suspect you could offer some good examples to support the idea. Will skip for now, though. 4. Agreed. It'd be nice to see detailed fighters dip deeper into unique sets of technique specializations; as you note, the cost system works against that. 5. True – but I'll commend GURPS for letting you design a master by custom-designing an array of special moves and techniques and all that, OR by just slapping on a really high skill and keeping things simple. Two valid ways to do things. Definitely a feature, not a bug! All right. My observation on the pricing issue (problem #1): I think most of us agree that GURPS' technique pricing is problem where breadth is concerned - i.e., buying up 2 or 3 or (don't do it!) 4 or more techniques. This just doesn't play nicely with the 4-point/level cost for the whole skill. However, IMO, GURPS' technique pricing is not a problem where depth is concerned – i.e., buying any single technique up and up. I pay 1 point for a +1 on some subset of the skill (say, Feint), another 1 point for another +1, and so on, up to the cap. To me, this meshes nicely with the 4-point/level cost of the skill itself, and feels and plays just fine. The point: I like the gist of your TP system as a fix, but to me there's a flaw in it (and in other suggestions that lower the cost of techniques all-around): The fix doesn't distinguish between the cost of technique depth (which is not a problem) and the cost of technique breadth (which is a problem). In other words: If the TP system (or similar suggestion) gives me a handful of "technique points" for free (or at a super-cheap price), and I spend them to buy +1 on each of a handful of techniques, that feels like a nice step toward addressing the cost problem. But if I instead spend them to buy a big +X on one technique (say, Feint), it seems to me I'm getting away with something, netting a big unneeded discount on an effect that was priced fairly to begin with. How to improve this wee little dilemma? I think that.... Well, before yammering about a fix for the above, let me stop and ask: Does my objection to the TP system even make sense? Or am I missing something completely?
__________________
T Bone GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com Twitter: @Gamesdiner | RSS: here ⬅︎ Updated RSS link | This forum: Site updates thread (occasionally updated) (Latest goods on site: GLAIVE Mini levels up to v2.4. Update to melee weapon design tool, with more example weapons and commentary.) |
|
07-20-2017, 03:30 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
|
Re: [House Rules] Technique System Overhaul
Quote:
But. dfinlay does mention two things that is a solution to this. 1) He charges TP differently depending on the technique. So some would cost 3 per +1, others only 1 TP per +1. So you could charge more for the techniques we feel are powerful, such as Feint. 2) He seems to deliberately NOT use the official list of techniques, but rather let players come up with their own based on their individual characters personality and traits. This would not work with my group. They would for the most part, want the ones already there. |
|
07-20-2017, 08:59 AM | #14 |
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Not in your time zone:D
|
Re: [House Rules] Technique System Overhaul
I'm lazy but I like the idea.
Perhaps 1 free TP per character point spent after 4? and the cost of buying up your technique is similar to actual skill costs, eg 1, 2, 4, 8, unless spread over time... Then I wouldn't have to estimate comparative values of different techniques, which imho is the keystone of making this house rule cool. (now I want to see a thread for House Cools...)
__________________
"Sanity is a bourgeois meme." Exegeek PS sorry I'm a Parthian shootist: shiftwork + out of country = not here when you are:/ It's all in the reflexes |
07-20-2017, 12:19 PM | #15 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: [House Rules] Technique System Overhaul
Quote:
The problem I mentioned is a bit different (and unrelated to the matter of over-priced vs under-priced techniques). It's this: IMO, the cost of multiple techniques needs to be cheaper, but the per-level cost of a technique does not need to be cheaper. So that's my little objection to any suggestion for free technique points, or an all-round cheaper cost for techniques: those solutions make it cheaper to buy more techniques, which is good, but also make it cheaper to buy higher levels of techniques, which is not good (IMO). Not sure whether I make the point clearly or not...
__________________
T Bone GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com Twitter: @Gamesdiner | RSS: here ⬅︎ Updated RSS link | This forum: Site updates thread (occasionally updated) (Latest goods on site: GLAIVE Mini levels up to v2.4. Update to melee weapon design tool, with more example weapons and commentary.) |
|
07-21-2017, 05:52 AM | #16 |
Join Date: Sep 2016
|
Re: [House Rules] Technique System Overhaul
One option to make Techniques more attractive is to boost their contribution to Perk limits - perhaps the focused training to become proficient with a technique counts more than the basic training to increase base skill.
Points in techniques might provide 2 (or 3 or 4) times their value towards calculating the number of Perks you can take. |
07-21-2017, 07:05 AM | #17 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
|
Re: [House Rules] Technique System Overhaul
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
house rule, house rules, overhaul, technique, techniques |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|