Stop Spending Earned Character Points

[Alden Loveshade]

After every game session, your PC earns character points (hopefully). But what if you don't want them?

I was just in a discussion with a player who has a PC with over 50 unspent points. I've had characters with that many as well (one of my super PCs has over 100). While I'll build up some PCs as much as possible, with others I'll stop spending earned character points because they're already the way I want them.

I go by character concept. If my conception is someone who can lift a car because he's more powerful than a locomotive, and who can leap tall buildings in a single bound, I don't necessarily want him flying into space and pushing around planets.

Anybody else run into this? How do you deal with it?

[AlexanderHowl]

People tend to continue to improve, even if it just stuff like background skills (Area Knowledge, Current Affairs, Games, and Hobby Skills). Even someone who spend 8 hours a day playing video games will accumulate 1 CP every 100 days towards that Games Skill ('on the job' training rates assumed). Even if that is all they do, they will be at IQ+9 after eight years.

In general, I assume that people benefit from a minimum of 5 CP of improvement every year before they start failing aging rolls (even if their improvements are background skills). Players can either spend them, reserve them for a specific purpose, or I will spend them for them according to their character's background. Of course, I also let characters go into point debt to puchase traits after character creation as long as they have 50% of the cost (rounded up), so my players rarely have had unspent points.

[Sorenant]

As a GM I'd be happier if you spent those points in some form so I can better plan what to do next.
If the characters went from X points to X+50 points, I'd prepare challenges accordingly but if one of he players decides to stay behind, that's yet another thing for me to account for. Better GMs might breeze through this sort of preparation but unfortunately I'm not that good, so I'd be happier if they spent those points even if for things like Luck, Serendipity, Gizmo, Common Sense and Intuition.
Fortunately I never faced such problem, players tends to always want something more for their characters.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

People tend to continue to improve, even if it just stuff like background skills (Area Knowledge, Current Affairs, Games, and Hobby Skills).

In game terms, if a PC earns an average of about 2 points per week, in a year that's 100 points. For a PC originally built on 150 points, that's enough to make a number of skills equal to or even exceed their original primary skill level.

In real life, I'm not sure how much most people continue to improve, even in their primary skill. I saw a study of a number of famed musical composers based on what was considered their greatest work. Most achieved it after about 10 years of composition. The same is true of mathematicians and physicists. Most modern-day female gymnasts reach their peak by or before their early 20s.

[Donny Brook]

Things that don't substantially alter characer concept:

Hobbies, some wealth, income, buy down disads, contacts, favors, narrow reputation, increase sideline skills, skills that reflect experience like teaching and leadership, advantages that reflect experience like indomitable and fearlessness,low levels of charisma, low levels of improved senses, impulse buys.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by DMGG

Seems like this is something that can be outlined at the beginning of a campaign. It's really up to the theme of the game being played whether or not characters should be becoming ever stronger or remaining fairly static as far as power levels go. The GM doesn't even have to give out points at the end of every session if there's no expectation for the PCs to grow in power and ability. Alternatively, they could give points much more slowly to represent natural skill growth over longer time periods.

Originally Posted by Refplace

I limit progression so not too much increase in most things at one time.

Those are possible options. Years ago, we started a two-level campaign set in Tredroy on Yrth (now in GURPS Banestorm). We shared GM duties, and each had one PC who was Status 0 or less, and one who was Status 1 or higher. But when my lower Status PC ended up getting a promotion, I stopped playing him regularly. That wasn't what I wanted for that character.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Things that don't substantially alter characer concept:

Hobbies, some wealth, income, buy down disads, contacts, favors, narrow reputation, increase sideline skills, skills that reflect experience like teaching and leadership, advantages that reflect experience like indomitable and fearlessness,low levels of charisma, low levels of improved senses, impulse buys.

Some of these may well work. It depends on the character/campaign concept. For example, I'm GMing/playing a campaign (we switch GMs) where the PCs have been students, new assistant teachers, a recently released prisoner, a junior level priestess, etc. But as an experiment, we let one player try a wealthy PC--it unfortunately didn't fit well in that campaign.

There's also the issue of a long-running campaign. For example, one of my PCs has spent over 60 points on many of the above. I don't want to get rid of any Disadvantages, because I like them for that PC--they're part of the fun.

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

I assume you're talking about having eliminated/reduced the Disadvantages and improved their Abilities, Stats and Skills as much as makes sense for the concept.

That's correct.

[DMGG]

Seems like this is something that can be outlined at the beginning of a campaign. It's really up to the theme of the game being played whether or not characters should be becoming ever stronger or remaining fairly static as far as power levels go. The GM doesn't even have to give out points at the end of every session if there's no expectation for the PCs to grow in power and ability. Alternatively, they could give points much more slowly to represent natural skill growth over longer time periods.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

.

In real life, I'm not sure how much most people continue to improve, even in their primary skill. I saw a study of a number of famed musical composers based on what was considered their greatest work. Most achieved it after about 10 years of composition. The same is true of mathematicians and physicists. Most modern-day female gymnasts reach their peak by or before their early 20s.

And perhaps even more to the point, dramatic and literary characters in episodic series of procedural adventures, such as Sherlock Holmes, the Saint, Captain Hornblower, Captain Kirk, Batman and so on sometimes change with the times, but they seldom improve or learn. They are just as cunning, just such good seaman, when they are the third lieutenant on HMS Renown as when they are the rear admiral commanding HM ships and vessels in the West Indies.

Have you considered giving the superfluous experience points in the form of social advantages?

[Tyneras]

People do not improve infinitely. They improve until they can reliably succeed, then stop. If a single point in a skill (with TDMS and equipment bonuses) is enough, then that's as far as they will go, no matter how many hours they do something.

Impulse buys would be a good point sink, as well as other single use abilities like Favor.

But GURPS doesn't demand constant advancement either. Your character can simply stay as they are and continue to join in, though if the rest of the game assumes constant advancement this may eventually become an issue.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

People do not improve infinitely.
They improve until they can reliably succeed, then stop.
If a single point in a skill (with TDMS and equipment bonuses) is enough, then that's as far as they will go, no matter how many hours they do something.

Not sure I agree.

You automatically get "On the Job Training" while doing any job, meaning every 800 hours (100 work days, 20 five-day weeks) you get 1 character point to spend on skills used in your job.

Even at the top levels of skill that's 4 points to get +1 on your skill every 80 weeks.

If you work 40 weeks a year (12 weeks = 3 month vacation) that's +1 to skill every 2 years.

Work 20 year career = +20 to skill.

This is why we need B293 "Maintaining Skill" option for "extreme skills" because once it gets above IQ+10 to guarantee you won't lose your point you must do one of:

a) practise the skill 1 full hour (doesn't count as study)
b) use skill in the field

If you do neither then at end of day there's an IQ roll and if it fails it drops an ENTIRE LEVEL meaning lose ALL FOUR of the points you spent increasing it that level: all 80 weeks (2 years taking a seasonal vacation) LOST

The unfortunate thing is this means once you get to skill+10 metagamers are probably just going to buy up IQ instead any time they get bonus points, since that doesn't degrade. Even with "Special Training" UB perk surcharges to buy that above 20, 21 per level (11 per level if you ignore Will/Per) is still well worth "not gonna lose.

I don't think you can get "On the Job Training" for "using my IQ" though, so it sounds like bonus points (based on GM fiat not fixed "hours in") would be the only way to increase attributes.

It's just not the clearest since B124 "Cannot Learn" also fixes IQ/DX development which gives the impression you can "learn" improvements to IQ/DX, but I think B290 is referring to spending bonus points...

Although B292's Improvement Through Study says "“skills” refers not only to ordinary skills, but also to spells, techniques, and even some advantages" it references Learnable Advantages on B294 and Attributes aren't listed there...

If it were allowed, "suitable instructor" requirement (can't self-teach from books like w/ skills) per B293 aside from Teaching 12 (Learnable Skills IMPOSSIBLE w/o finding someone w/ that!) the two criteria sort of coalese into one, as with IQ there isn't really any difference between:

a) "must either know that skill at your current skill level or better"
b) "have as many or more points in the skill as you"

a) allows higher-IQ teachers w/ fewer points in skill to teach you
b) allows lower-IQ teachers w/ more points in skill to teach you

Since there's just an attribute, I would collectively understand that (assuming IQ were teachable at all) to be "must have IQ equal to or greater than your own"

I guess the benefit there (like w/ skills) is a pair of great minds (tied IQ) could just teach each other and increase skills/IQ indefinitely.

"Intensive Training" requires "higher level and more points" so I'd read that as "IQ must be 2 higher" (it would be +1 if "one or the other" so it's only fair to require +2 for both) to get the x2 rate.

Maybe something between Education/Intensive for a 1.5x rate if IQ is merely 1 higher. Like if the condition was "higher level or more points" which is still harder than the "same or same" req of Education.

Actually there might be more tiers... above "same and same" could be "same and higher OR more and same" but that might be tied to "high OR more" in terms of difficulty.