Banestorm Victims And High TL Skills

[gruundehn]

If you want to run such a campaign, I would suggest reading LEST DARKNESS FALL by L. Sprague de Camp if you can find a copy. It is an excellent book covering that sort of event - an archeologist from the 1930s Rome somehow catapulted into 6th Century Rome.

[whswhs]

A more recent work in the same tradition is S. M. Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time (and its two sequels), where a few thousands Americans from the late 20th fall into the -13th or so.

There is also Poul Anderson's "The Man Whe Came Early," which offers a less optimistic look at the outcome of such an event.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by scc

If the player takes the skill does that mean the party will eventually acquire a car the player can use skill on? Permanently or temporarily? Or is it simply a wasted point or points?

If a character in a TL8 modern game is a retired USAF fighter pilot and takes appropriate skills does that mean the party will get an F15 for him to fly at some point? Does that mean the party will get ANY kind of aircraft that one of the characters isn’t wealthy enough to buy?

Probably not.

What I did in the one “ this isn’t the campaign you think it is” group I ran, for GURPS Riverworld, was havectgem build modern characters but reserve half their skill points to spend later... so they knew a twist was coming but not what.

...then I allowed them to build in back stories that justified some anachronistic skills, but they couldn’t build their whole character that way.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by scc

Title is a little off, but easily sums up my question. As a GM if you had one or more characters banished from a higher TL world to a lower one, presumably never to return, how would you treat skills from the higher TL world. As an example lets use the example of someone moved via Banestorm from modern day Earth to Yrth and the Driving/TL8 skill.

Is taking the skill prohibited? If allowed what does it mean? Or is it required?

If the player takes the skill does that mean the party will eventually acquire a car the player can use skill on? Permanently or temporarily? Or is it simply a wasted point or points?

And what if the character doesn't take it and the party gets their hands on a vehicle? On you penalize the player for not spending points on something he had no reason to expect to ever need? If it's temporary do you simply let him drive it as if he had a single point? Or do you require him to go into point debt to buy a point?

As a player in a 3e GURPS game, I once played in a very short-lived campaign (the GM moved away) with the premise of modern characters being removed to who-knows-where-or-when. Characters were built with that much knowledge about the campaign. Wasted points were wasted points. Among my character's points were 1 point spent on Guns (Pistol)/Tl 7. It was a wasted point, just like Motorcycle/TL7, but I was okay with it. Incidentally, when transferred to the fantasy world, my character's automatic pistol turned to sand.

Now, if I were GMing such a campaign, I might treat the character point budgets a bit differently. The first consideration is how quickly I'm going to be having the Banestorm hit. If it's going to hit in the first or second session, I would feel that the characters need to be compensated for unusable skills; whereas if the characters are going to be spending longer than that in the modern world, I'd be less inclined to offer compensation as they've already gotten some utility out of their purchase. (Quick rule of thumb, each session in the modern world is worth one level with all purchased skills. Eg., after five sessions, I'd offer compensation only for those skills with 16 or more points in them; and then, it would be only 1 point of compensation for a 16-point skill.)

In the case of a first or second session transfer, I would be going through each character sheet. Any skill which is completely unusable, eg., Driving (Automobile)/TL 7 in a world with no cars or similar vehicles would get full points. Technological skills usable at a penalty would get the difference between their cost and their value if they had been bought at a level equal to their penalty (which might mean full value, in some cases). Skills which remain usable in the setting, even if not particularly useful, would not get compensation. The compensating points would be available to buy the first point in a new appropriate skill (and possibly one or more levels of appropriate talent, if the character's background would allow for such. Eg., someone might discover he's a natural Outdoorsman, if he's never been in a situation where it would have come out.) Depending on the total number of points in the pool, I might allow some points to be spent on Attributes or Advantages. Eg., an active modern person might be allowed to buy Fit or Very Fit, or a level or two of HT, to represent being healthier than the run-of-the-mill person at TL 3; if you want a John Carter of Mars vibe.

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

In the case of a first or second session transfer, I would be going through each character sheet. Any skill which is completely unusable, eg., Driving (Automobile)/TL 7 in a world with no cars or similar vehicles would get full points. Technological skills usable at a penalty would get the difference between their cost and their value if they had been bought at a level equal to their penalty (which might mean full value, in some cases). Skills which remain usable in the setting, even if not particularly useful, would not get compensation. The compensating points would be available to buy the first point in a new appropriate skill (and possibly one or more levels of appropriate talent, if the character's background would allow for such. Eg., someone might discover he's a natural Outdoorsman, if he's never been in a situation where it would have come out.) Depending on the total number of points in the pool, I might allow some points to be spent on Attributes or Advantages. Eg., an active modern person might be allowed to buy Fit or Very Fit, or a level or two of HT, to represent being healthier than the run-of-the-mill person at TL 3; if you want a John Carter of Mars vibe.

This is what I did during my first campaign featuring dimension travel back in the 90ies - at least with social advantages. Everyone of higher standing turned out to be a Psi or a Mage :)

Your could also grant the characters science skills. Many people today possess, for example, comparitvely impressive mathematical, biological or psychological knowledge. You could argue the same is true for many artistic skills, like painting or writing.

[AlexanderHowl]

I think that the characters should be created as X+Y characters. 'X' is the number of useful character points to the campaign while 'Y' is the number of background character points for the character. In the case of a TL8 character going to a TL3 world, you could make them 150 + 100 characeters (150 points for useful traits and 100 background traits [including High TL 5 {25}]).

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

This implies that the player knows the destination setting in enough detail know which skills will be useless. How much of a surprise is enjoyable or tolerable is an often-debated point. But if the Banestorm was supposed to be a surprise to modern characters, then the players don't know that Driving will be useless. If the players do know, then all the characters will somehow coincidentally be low-tech reenactors and off-the-grid hobbyists.

The GM has to decide what sort of story he's telling...

You're completely correct about that method requiring telling the players what will be happening. Just how you sell the campaign to the players is a big part of how you choose to do this, and different methods have their pros and cons.



Having run this sort of thing for lost in dreams (which features repetitive dumping of a character on a new world without money, friends, or garments), I mostly just explain what sort of game we're running and forbid characters more suited than a certain standard. If they come up with something that doesn't meet the standard, I let them know, and I'm usually stricter with someone who has already failed one character (floating a concept by me doesn't count as a strike though).


The other thing I sometimes do is give a budget for highly relevant skills. I did that for my "Boarders from Earth" game. That was a high TL switch, not a low TL, but its worked.



But there is no one "Right way". Just the wrong way, which is to not think how you're going to it through.

[AlexanderHowl]

What is considered inappropriate in that case though? I have known plenty of people who have belonged to the SCA and have spent years, if not decades, perfectly the arts and crafts of their favorite time period (I have even known people who were born to couples who were members of the SCA and effectively grew up in the organization). Should someone really be penalized because they are playing someone who was born to lifelong members of the SCA, which is actually a real thing that thousands of people in the USA have experienced?

Or how about a martial artist? I have known dozens of people who have practiced martial arts for decades by now. They received their 3rd degree black belts (or the equivalent) in one martial art before branching out to other martial arts. By now, they are masters of half a dozen martial arts and have developed proficiency in a dozen weapons. Why should that type of character be penalized when it is something that thousands of people have done in the USA?

Or how about someone who is a Scout Master? When I was in the Boy Scouts, I knew plenty of boys who were the third generation of scouts in their families, and their children are now the fourth generation of scouts in their families. Is it really that unlikely that a Scout Master could end up being captured by a Banestorm while camping in the wilderness?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

What is considered inappropriate in that case though? I have known plenty of people who have belonged to the SCA and have spent years, if not decades, perfectly the arts and crafts of their favorite time period (I have even known people who were born to couples who were members of the SCA and effectively grew up in the organization). Should someone really be penalized because they are playing someone who was born to lifelong members of the SCA, which is actually a real thing that thousands of people in the USA have experienced?

Or how about a martial artist? I have known dozens of people who have practiced martial arts for decades by now. They received their 3rd degree black belts (or the equivalent) in one martial art before branching out to other martial arts. By now, they are masters of half a dozen martial arts and have developed proficiency in a dozen weapons. Why should that type of character be penalized when it is something that thousands of people have done in the USA?

Or how about someone who is a Scout Master? When I was in the Boy Scouts, I knew plenty of boys who were the third generation of scouts in their families, and their children are now the fourth generation of scouts in their families. Is it really that unlikely that a Scout Master could end up being captured by a Banestorm while camping in the wilderness?

My standard for too much was pretty close to more than one of those things. In Lost in Dreams I saw scouts (or scout equivalents). I saw Martial artists. I don't think I saw any SCA/HEMA types, but I saw historians. And that was fine. That was their edge. Not the entire character concept, but their edge.



They all came off as otherwise normal people who could function in modern society. And they did better at one or two of the challenges presented, but struggled with some of the others, and that was just fine with me. Other players went for characters with universal skills, like being good talkers. It all worked out.



Now, those players weren't supposed to be "Randomly Selected". But if the concept required that, I'd put out a different set of requirements.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

What is considered inappropriate in that case though? I have known plenty of people who have belonged to the SCA and have spent years, if not decades, perfectly the arts and crafts of their favorite time period (I have even known people who were born to couples who were members of the SCA and effectively grew up in the organization). Should someone really be penalized because they are playing someone who was born to lifelong members of the SCA, which is actually a real thing that thousands of people in the USA have experienced?

Or how about a martial artist? I have known dozens of people who have practiced martial arts for decades by now. They received their 3rd degree black belts (or the equivalent) in one martial art before branching out to other martial arts. By now, they are masters of half a dozen martial arts and have developed proficiency in a dozen weapons. Why should that type of character be penalized when it is something that thousands of people have done in the USA?

Or how about someone who is a Scout Master? When I was in the Boy Scouts, I knew plenty of boys who were the third generation of scouts in their families, and their children are now the fourth generation of scouts in their families. Is it really that unlikely that a Scout Master could end up being captured by a Banestorm while camping in the wilderness?

It depends on when and where the modern characters are from.

Here are some fast numbers based on Wikipedia. About 5% of the US population (teenagers through elderly) were martial artists, (defined as having practiced a martial art at least once in the last year) with roughly 25% of those, about 1.25% overall, being classed as dedicated martial artists, defined as practicing a martial art whenever they had the opportunity to do so. These numbers didn't include collegiate and high school wrestlers but an estimate of those was also provided and the number of wrestlers in those categories amounted to a rounding error.

The SCA in the USA numbered about 30,000 members with a similar number of non-members. It was initially a West Coast phenomenon and still has a large concentration there, somewhat smaller on the East Coast and not much in between. Given a population of 300 million, that's about 1 in 10,000 for members, 1 in 5,000 if you include non-members.

I didn't bother checking numbers for the BSA, but I will point out that while competent, most Boy Scouts don't become Eagle Scouts, or even Life or Star Scouts (Life and Star ranks are reversed before 1920). Again Wikipedia puts the total number of Eagle Scouts since 1911 at over 2,000,000, so they would make up less than 1% of the USA population, even if they were all still alive, which I'm inclined to doubt is the case. (I'm presuming here that if the number of Eagle Scouts exceeded 3,000,000, Wikipedia would have said so [which may or may not be a valid expectation].) Mind you, First Class Boy Scouts would be reasonably competent at survival and woodcraft, given some basic tools.

So, while I wouldn't necessarily say such characters should necessarily be penalized, I will point out that you are somewhat over-estimating their occurrence. Thousands in a population numbering hundreds of millions just isn't a significant fraction in most cases.