Advantages Are Not Utility Priced

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Exactly. The philosophy of X therefore -X is egalitarian, but egalitarian ideals extended to game mechanics may be taking it a bit far. :)

My experience is that, given a choice between 'twice as deadly' and 'twice as tough', almost everyone takes 'twice as deadly'. The thing is, in a game where 6d attacks are normal, doing 12d makes you twice as deadly, whereas having DR 20 makes you somewhere around ten times as tough.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

But if you are going to count points, then you should be able to strip out the built-in UB costs which should only be setting specific.

That assumes that there are built-in UB costs to be stripped out. That is, you're assuming that there is some part of the trait's cost that is not setting-specific. I don't think that's a valid assumption.

The idea that point costs have any sort of objective truth to them is an illusion. When you're looking at one thing, you can say that a more potent version of it should never cost less and should usually cost more; but how much more depends on campaign- and group-specific factors. For example, you'll eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, where you have enough potency to overwhelm 99% of the opposition in the game in this area; by that point, spending more on it is wasteful, unless you know for a fact that the remaining 1% is going to be a frequent adversary.

And even then, if the type of circumstances that make that trait useful aren't going to come up much in the game, you get to a point where it stops making sense to charge for more of it: you might have the best darn buggy whip in the land; but it's still just a buggy whip, so there's only so much you can charge for it.

And as soon as you start comparing different things, objective standards go right out the window. Is +1 IQ really worth the same as +4 DR? It's a nonsensical question, because you're comparing apples to oranges: IQ has nothing in common with DR. The relative value of IQ and DR depends heavily on how often IQ-based challenges will come up vs. how often DR-based challenges will come up. In a high-intrigue game, physical violence may be all but unheard of; and when it does happen, it will probably have been carefully orchestrated in advance to involve overwhelming force. In such a game, having DR is worthless in and of itself; it only has value if it's a secret and thus can't be accounted for by your enemies. Conversely, the most banal of hack-and-slash games renders IQ all but worthless: all that matters is how much damage you can dish out and how much you can take.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

That assumes that there are built-in UB costs to be stripped out. That is, you're assuming that there is some part of the trait's cost that is not setting-specific. I don't think that's a valid assumption.

Well, in the case of DR if I say that the base value of DR is mostly that UB cost, then I can turn around and do something like:

TL 0-4, melee centric
DR 1 [5]
DR 2 [10]
DR 3 [15]

TL 5-8, firearms centric
DR 7 [15]
DR 14 [30]
DR 28 [50]

TL +, supers & ultra
DR 7 [10]
DR 35 [25]
DR 70 [50]
DR 700 [100]

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Well, in the case of DR if I say that the base value of DR is mostly that UB cost, then I can turn around and do something like:

You can do something like that regardless. My point wasn't that you can't vary the cost of things, but rather than you can always vary the cost of things. You will never find a part of the cost that should always be there regardless of the campaign assumptions.

For example: all three of your tables assume that the game in question is going to be "combat-centric", for lack of a better term. But if the game that you're planning on running is supposed to be, say, a high school drama which centers on the Social Engineering rules and rarely if ever moves into the realm of physical violence, all of your proposed tables are overpriced. As much as I like your tables, they still have implicit assumptions about what kind of game is going to be run; and if the game violates said assumptions, the tables provided are useless.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Well, in the case of DR if I say that the base value of DR is mostly that UB cost, then I can turn around and do something like:

It is of course entirely UB cost. That's why you can buy off-the-shelf DR in the form of armour and why it's optional to charge character points at all for cyber enhancements, skin armour included.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It is of course entirely UB cost.

Armour as equipment has costs in terms of weight, money, and social consequences; at TL 4, increasing the DR of a full suit of plate armor by 1 point is $1,525 and 12.2 lb. That could easily cost 5 points between extra money and the ability to carry the extra weight, and it only works in situations where you can appropriately wear plate armor.

Honestly, having some explicit rules for just taking regular equipment and incorporating it via Signature Gear and Payload would fix a lot of problems with balance of equipment vs abilities.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Armour as equipment has costs in terms of weight, money, and social consequences; at TL 4, increasing the DR of a full suit of plate armor by 1 point is $1,525 and 12.2 lb. That could easily cost 5 points between extra money and the ability to carry the extra weight, and it only works in situations where you can appropriately wear plate armor.
.

I airily wave away this trivia. People who buy DR with points frequently buy extra strength anyway for other reasons, and the social consequences and money issues can apply just as easily to people who are charged points for DR. Such as for example the cyberpunks. The reason to charge character points is to ensure that the whole group won't just automatically get all that stuff when they get the money, which they will frequently do in play.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I airily wave away this trivia.

That nonchalance suits you, sir.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

...just automatically get all that stuff when they get the money, which they will frequently do in play.

I think this is where a large disconnect is. Either money have to have absolutely no connection whatsoever (which doesn't work so well in a system like gurps), or there needs to be a playable ratio between the two. Almost any item can be figured as character points. Signature Gear + Payload seems to be about the best solution I've seen ('buying' off Gadget limitations was a solution I was trying awhile back). It might not be perfect (especially if you can buy Payload with cash), but both of those scale easily to campaign.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I think this is where a large disconnect is. Either money have to have absolutely no connection whatsoever (which doesn't work so well in a system like gurps), or there needs to be a playable ratio between the two. Almost any item can be figured as character points.

Ugh. Creeping HEROism. That way lies designing a fork with points.