Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2020, 02:34 PM   #81
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
Disadvantages can be limited by Basic without the needless complexity of adding 'Not Disadvantage'.
If I take Lecherousness (12-; Women Only, -20%) as a bisexual, I will probably experience -12 CP worth of problems.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that it should only be worth -3 CP (which is the effect of requiring the addition of 'Not Lecherousness' with Accessibility (Men Only, -20%) [12]).
Is there an example of advantage-based accessibilities being floated unmodified as disadvantage mitigators like this?

Lecherousness is sort of strange in that it is kind of a "multiplicative" disadvantage in that the more genders you find attractive (might even be more than 2 in some alien campaigns) the more 'potential triggers' exist for it.

OTOH...
likely to change your standards of attractiveness if no truly attractive members of the appropriate sex are available
There's two ways to read that:
1) change standards to include "not truly attractive" members of the appropriate sex
2) change standards to include members "not of the appropriate sex"
If it means both then I imagine (2) only kicks in if (1) isn't possible (ie gender-segregated populations serving monthlong prison sentences or sailing trips)

This makes me wonder if "likely to change your standards" is meant to be represented statistically or not. Like for example is that gaining the "Susceptible to Seduction by Extra Sex" disadvantage?

One major problem I see with Handsome/Beautiful is your gender only seems to influence your reaction rolls when more-than-attractive. That doesn't really reflect how IRL someone normal (or even unattractive) still has a better chance of getting reaction bonuses from someone attracted to that gender at least for certain skills (namely Sex Appeal).

B155 "Social Disease" comes to mind as something interesting to represent gender because:
"react to you at -1 and automatically resist your seduction attempts"

Being masculine could resemble "Not Social Disease (Accessibility: Androphiles Only -20%) while being feminine could resemble "Not Social Disease (Accessibility: Gynephiles Only -20%) either of which costs 4 points atop taking SD as a -5 disadvantage/

In either case the net effect is a quirk of "people not attracted to my gender are immune to seduction and react at -1 to me".

If that's the case then "attracted to gender" is basically a disadvantage (not immune to seduction by that gender): it could be a leveled perk to be attracted to fewer genders or a leveled quirk to be attracted to more genders than whatever the campaign baseline is set at (probably 1 assuming monosexual stereotypes) eg asexual = perk / bisexual =quirk.

These could be balanced out as 0-point features (in interests of being PC) by throwing in some compensating factor as a meta-trait. Like maybe attraction to gender gives +1 to Sex Appeal rolls against (liking what you do makes it easier) meaning asexuals don't enjoy it against anyone (no +1) while bisexuals enjoy it against either (+1 to either).

That in theory should actually give you a bonus to Sex Appeal rolls against attractive people though, but maybe we can assume that handsome/beautiful comes with some kind of built-in cancellation to that because they're used to the attention. IE we don't have to worry about this because a free +1 to resist cancels out the free +1 to seduce against you.

Except this might need some further tweaking since SD might actually be intended to be transmissible in some way...

It's actually strange this is a physical trait though because the actual effects of the disadvantage seem to be SOCIAL ones.

Actually representing the disease itself should be physical, sure, but the whole "close, unprotected physical contact" seems like you would actually represent that via other things you would pair with this.

B140 "Infectious Attack" for example, except modified to be "less supernatural".

Z52 "Infected Touch" meta-modifier for Dominance seems to cover MOST the bases (melee attack and contact agent limitations, no injury required enhancement) I'd just want to tweak it a bit:
1) remove "no onset time", 2d days is a reasonable "incubation time" for many diseases
2) remove "cannot parry" and add "aura" and "always on" (it shouldn't just be when you attack people, but when they attack you)
I don't WANT to remove Horde because it seems to be perfect for this situation ("doesn't dominate those he turns") but since it requires "No Onset Time" it's like it's mandatory you do so...

Horde is kind of a zombie-biased term for the limitation, it just seems like "Undominating" and maybe this should replace Infectious Attack, a 4 point advantage instead of a -5 disadvantage?

Maybe you could add NOT but then take "Onset" ? It's sneaky but not explicitly illegal...

NOT+50% + Onset: 1 week -40% is a net +10% enhancement to change 2-12 days into a fixed 7 days, which is the average dice roll of 2d anyway, so that seems pretty balanced to me...

Z128's "Setting the Schedule" deals with some of these ideas but doesn't actually deal with using modifiers to build them all (Z126's "Triggers and Timelines" seems grounds to have "Triggered Delay" enhancement on the attacks)

It does make sense as an enhancement IMO since "I know exactly how long it will take for my victims to turn" is a benefit for you. That's one reason I wonder about "Fixed+0%" not costing anything in PU4: does that mean you actually know the MoS of your Affliction victims and when their durations expire?

The reason I'm using Dominance instead of Infectious Attack is because it has "No Injury Required" while IA doesn't. Both do however have "Fatal Beating" so I'm wondering if that could be a guideline on how to float values between them.

FB is a -40% mitigator to Infectious Attack AND a -40% limitation for Dominance. It moves both towards zero because "harder to make minions" saves points while "harder to make rivals" costs points.

If that's the case I could see "No Injury Requirement" being a +50% enhancement for Infectious Attack too: you can create rivals by brushing up against them instead of damaging them.

Same w/ No Onset Time, "instant rivals" is a bigger disadvantage than "rivals in about a week". Though weirdly that's +50% for Dominance while "Instant Karma" (seems to function exactly the same) is merely +40% for Infectious Attack...

Z62 mentions an assumption for Infectious Attack "have mental disadvantage that cause them (to) compete for resources" which I'm guessing would somehow account for the 9-point diff which would exist between D(-80%) and IA.

Maybe the -9 is "cannot add them as allies" ? That might mean more than just "I automatically can ally you" but instead "I can never ally you". I think the best way to represent an unusual background of "NPC cannot be my ally" would be to make them an enemy, and make Ally/Enemy mutually exclusive? Instead of a hard cap you'd need to buy it off?

"Every time my ability activates" giving you a disadvantage could be done two ways:
1) Corrupting: "points saved on ability is corruption gained per use" is basically "each use gives you a disadvantage equal to 1/10 points saved" since 10 corr = quirk.
2) Aftermath: Temporary Enemies (lasts 10 minutes or however long you used ability). In this case I'd say that time would be how long it takes to transform (2d days, or as otherwise modified w/ onset?) since the actual infectious is instantaeous unless you also take "Exposure Time".
In the case of diseases, rivalry enemies could manifest as "compete for doctors" or "compete for people willing to socialize with diseased people".

Come to think of it... SD as written is a bit extreme. Knowing someone has a Social Disease like a retrovirus or or AB-resistant bacteria shouldn't necessarily make everyone aware IMMUNE to seduction...

I could understand a penalty to Sex Appeal rolls of course, but a hard cap is hard to believe. Especially in the case of stuff like Slave Mentality where they would automatically fail any influence roll.

There could be mitigators to that situation, like people who are immune to getting the disease, people who can easily cure it, people who know how to prevent transmission via prophylactic, people who don't care about getting the disease, people who want to get the disease, etc.

You could actually make this tiered too. Like fatal diseases should have more severe reactions and give bigger bonuses to resist than merely annoying ones. Contact Agents would give more sever reactions/bonuses than Blood Agents (unless of course a BA is misunderstood as being a CA)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbwarrior View Post
*In one campaign Unkillable 3 had a variant feature that instead of having to wait to recover, you are dead for the rest of the campaign but are guaranteed to be fine next campaign.
You can do "Game Time +0%" enhancement to convert IRLhour/session into GameDay/GameWeek, so maybe that could work in reverse?

Onset: 1 day = -30% = Onset IRL hour?
Onset: 1 week = -40% = Onset IRL session?

No conversion was given for what a campaign is. For simplicity I just want to guess 4 sessions so that I could do a "game month = IRL campaign" but it could shorter/longer.

There isn't even an onset: 1 month limitation but based on the pattern I'd want to guess -50% with season/year being 60/70
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2020, 09:04 PM   #82
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by dataweaver View Post
Buying Success? If my character has successfully attempted to influence the result of your roll, why not allow me to buy success for you?
Definitely agree with all of this. I cut this part out intentionally, I've had players use wildcard impulse points among each other to play around with the 'limits' on what you can spend points on; One character might have Encyclopedist! and another Knight!, the former could help the latter remember something and the latter could help the former succeed a parry and the GM might not even require them to be in the same room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Likewise. A single very high skill somehow feels more likely to degrade than a group of related skills. A way of dealing with that is to buy a Talent and trade in points in one of its skills for Talent levels.

For example, you have 16 points in Stealth, and one or two points in each of the other skills in the Stalker talent. Trade in a level of Stealth, and an extra point, to buy a level of Stalker. The Stealth level is unchanged, but the related skills go up one.

Of course, this relies on being able to buy Talents after starting play, but they're potentially justifiable as the result of broad experience. This also lets the GM impose an attribute cap without the players feeling blocked.
I actually really like this idea. I also generally prefer characters not to get too high with attribute+talent (over 20) and not too high with skills (over 25 or over +10) and letting them shuffle around points as they start to hit +10 to grab talents or attributes gives them more room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
No conversion was given for what a campaign is.
Oh, sorry, I accidentally conflate 'campaign' and 'session'. I meant session. But yeah, it was effectively 'game time'. Instead of coming up with an exact equation, it was 'you are dead until it doesn't matter'.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 12:00 AM   #83
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

There is really no particular reason to spend a lot of points on the Stealth skill. For example, a character with ST 12 [20], DX 12 [40], IQ 12 [40], HT 12 [20], Craftiness 4 [20], and Stalker 4 [20] can purchase Camouflage (E) IQ+8 [1]-20 and Stealth (A) DX+8 [2]-20 without any issues, and they are good at a lot of other stuff as well (they can easily acquire Acting, Disguise, Hiking, Holdout, Navigation (Land), Shadowing, and Tracking at '16' with minimal investment). If you give them Guns (Rifle) (E) DX+8 [28], they become very good snipers because they are capable of operating any high caliber rifle. It is a good build for a 200 CP character (given a few disadvantages and some other skills), as it does not require any cinematic or supernatural abilities to be a major threat.

Of course, the above character could benefit from future development, though IQ would likely be more important than anything else. +1 IQ would give 23 CP of benefits and +2 IQ would give 59 CP of benefits. Further IQ increases would give +38 CP in benefits per level.
AlexanderHowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 12:19 AM   #84
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
There is really no particular reason to spend a lot of points on the Stealth skill. For example, a character with ST 12 [20], DX 12 [40], IQ 12 [40], HT 12 [20], Craftiness 4 [20], and Stalker 4 [20] can purchase Camouflage (E) IQ+8 [1]-20 and Stealth (A) DX+8 [2]-20 without any issue
Another benefit I just noticed for Talent...

B76 "Assimilation" can only be used to learn "skills" from the host, but it doesn't mention being able to assimilate talents. So you're harder to impersonate...
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 12:41 AM   #85
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
There is really no particular reason to spend a lot of points on the Stealth skill. For example, a character with ST 12 [20], DX 12 [40], IQ 12 [40], HT 12 [20], Craftiness 4 [20], and Stalker 4 [20] can purchase Camouflage (E) IQ+8 [1]-20 and Stealth (A) DX+8 [2]-20 without any issues
That particular reason could likely apply to any skill. It is generally better to have high amounts of talent than one particular skill. Mind, I see two 4s in there so I'm assuming you have talents max at 4 then.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 03:40 AM   #86
johndallman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
There is really no particular reason to spend a lot of points on the Stealth skill. For example, a character with ST 12 [20], DX 12 [40], IQ 12 [40], HT 12 [20], Craftiness 4 [20], and Stalker 4 [20] can purchase Camouflage (E) IQ+8 [1]-20 and Stealth (A) DX+8 [2]-20 without any issues . . .
The character in question was built in 2007, when the state of the art of GURPS character building was rather simpler than it is nowadays, and the campaign is still ongoing. It's been a question of retrofitting the character, after they needed to get much better at Stealth quickly during the campaign, while following the "nothing goes down" principle.

Also, I tend to feel that Talents at level 4, in a reasonably gritty campaign, should be the preserve of extremely exceptional people. The character wasn't one of those when they were created.
johndallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 07:19 AM   #87
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbwarrior View Post
That particular reason could likely apply to any skill. It is generally better to have high amounts of talent than one particular skill. Mind, I see two 4s in there so I'm assuming you have talents max at 4 then.
Agreed. And I prefer keeping to Talent maximums of 4, as it results in less narrow characters. If characters have to possess multiple Talents, they have broader capabilities (even if they have one or two things that they are really good at).

In my own settings, I use Talents to make animals (and animalistic monsters) more dangerous. A tiger with Stalker 4 and Strangler 4 is a nightmare for most parties, and the players will start assuming that there is a supernatural component after a while. Having a tiger waiting in the darkness beyond the campfire, ready to pounce on anyone who goes off alone, creates good drama, especially as the characters realize that they do not have enough firewood for the night.
AlexanderHowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 04:32 PM   #88
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

One possible downside to talent:

if you want to be a teacher to others with the "intensive" rate, you not only need effective skill (ie attribute+talent helps) higher than your student, you also need "points in skill" higher which attribute/talent doesn't help with AFAIK

So if you're relying a lot on talent to be good at something, it will limit your ability to teach others the skill and give them time-based CP to spend on it.

You're trading "I can teach" for "I learn better" in a way (since you can get points in the skills in 10%/level quicker incremenets)

If there are "Teachable Talents" then I don't know what rules to use for them.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 06:36 PM   #89
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

Just use the same rules for teachable advantages, like Languages.
AlexanderHowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2020, 06:57 PM   #90
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: Stop Spending Earned Character Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
Agreed. And I prefer keeping to Talent maximums of 4, as it results in less narrow characters.
That's funny, I got rid of the limit to expand the amount of viable characters. Instead of needing to buy DX up just because you are getting six DX skills, you can buy up the talent and cover your bases with those points elsewhere.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
characer points, character concept, player character

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.