Stop Spending Earned Character Points

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

(unless it is a really easy job)

I guess that's what I want. Rules for jobs that are easy enough that someone with no work experience can get one and do well for a year without any issue...

...and now I just noticed there is a rule for jobs without prerequisites. It even lets the roll be a flat 12. I take back my issues.

[Ultraviolet]

The discussion seems so have switched from "spending earned CP", and I was thinking "adventure" for this, into "learning things from your day job"

Anyway, does anyone ever consider skill degradation? IIRC the old edition Spec Ops had some rules for this.
But long running campaigns, which earn lots of points for the characters, could perhaps suffer from this as well. SOem obscure skills, or those background skills learned as a child , which have been unused for years?

Personally, I'd rather not havbe to deal with this book keeping, which is why my campaign doesn't.
But maybe one could rule, that once in a while character pay a flat amount to keep skills (those which haven't been improved gradually) from degrading?
But, I'd rather not.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

That has a related issue I may address in a different post. In some of our campaigns, one GM might run 80% of the time, meaning on average the other players could get 4 - 5 times the earned character points as that GM's PC. The other players spending all their points can leave that GM's PC in the dust. (Although see immediately below.)

I'd be happy to discuss that

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Anyway, does anyone ever consider skill degradation?

That generally feels too much like punishment to me. Like, I'd rather not give players points than give them points and hang taking away points over their heads.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

The discussion seems so have switched from "spending earned CP", and I was thinking "adventure" for this, into "learning things from your day job"

It's doing both.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Anyway, does anyone ever consider skill degradation? IIRC the old edition Spec Ops had some rules for this.

So does Basic Set 4e. They're tagged as optional; but they're there.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

But long running campaigns, which earn lots of points for the characters, could perhaps suffer from this as well. SOem obscure skills, or those background skills learned as a child , which have been unused for years?

Personally, I'd rather not havbe to deal with this book keeping, which is why my campaign doesn't.
But maybe one could rule, that once in a while character pay a flat amount to keep skills (those which haven't been improved gradually) from degrading?
But, I'd rather not.

Likewise. I don't think I've ever actually used the skill degradation rule — not because I don't think it's realistic or believable (I have no doubt that it is), but because it adds bookkeeping, and does so for the most banal of purposes I can imagine. It's one of those things that I can point to add being in theory the reason why people don't just keep getting better and better as time goes on, but in practice is about as much fun as keeping track of whether my character will get an infection when injured in a fight.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

That generally feels too much like punishment to me. Like, I'd rather not give players points than give them points and hang taking away points over their heads.

Also, this. If I were ever to implement a Skill degradation rule in GURPS, it would probably be in the form of letting the player voluntarily sacrifice points in rarely used skills or other learned traits in order to free then up to be spent on something more valuable to the player — a sort of “lateral growth” strategy, though with Impulse Buys the freed-up points wouldn't necessarily have to be spent on growth. In this regard, it would be somewhat similar to the Point Debt extension to Meditative Magic in GURPS Fantasy.

Likewise with the effects of old age; though in that case I can see more of an argument for why the attribute Los must happen. Even there, though, I'd be fine with letting the player “bank” the points freed up from his degrading attributes in order to spend them on other things, such as wealth, influence, and secret knowledge — or even passing them on to a protégé: one option for rapid learning that I haven't seen in Back to School is the idea of matching payments from a teacher who is as much invested in your success as you are.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

Also, this. If I were ever to implement a Skill degradation rule in GURPS, it would probably be in the form of letting the player voluntarily sacrifice points in rarely used skills or other learned traits in order to free then up to be spent on something more valuable to the player — a sort of “lateral growth” strategy, though with Impulse Buys the freed-up points wouldn't necessarily have to be spent on growth. In this regard, it would be somewhat similar to the Point Debt extension to Meditative Magic in GURPS Fantasy.

Likewise with the effects of old age; though in that case I can see more of an argument for why the attribute Los must happen. Even there, though, I'd be fine with letting the player “bank” the points freed up from his degrading attributes in order to spend them on other things, such as wealth, influence, and secret knowledge — or even passing them on to a protégé: one option for rapid learning that I haven't seen in Back to School is the idea of matching payments from a teacher who is as much invested in your success as you are.

I might have already brought it up, but I love implementing horizontal growth (I think first brought up in Impulse Buys). I will absolutely let a player switch around skills if it makes sense, change disads around, replace powers wholesale, or even some combination of things. I even let players make loss 'permanent' for the points; If someone loses an arm, they just have to find a way to heal it back. But in a campaign where that is impossible, I'll let surgery remove any little bits left and convert it into a full disadvantage and give them points. This can even replace another disadvantage (they finally killed their enemy but they lost their arm in the fight). Same in reverse, if a massive issue happens that deprives them of Filthy Rich, I'm open to them losing it for 50pts.

I've even done similar things on a smaller scale; One race I made had Ally: Animal Friend [25], then took a perk that when they die, the animal will give up their body to bring them back (in effect, spending the points from Ally on Extra Life, then replacing the race template with the animal one and 'remaking' the character).

That protégé idea is neat. I love the idea of being able to use points on others to the point that years ago (well before Impulse Buys) I build a CP Cannon ability. This has come up with Wildcard skills and Destiny and one player actually gave up 25pts to bring an NPC back to life. If I recall, I think one of my players even gave up two points to 'teach' another player Stealth quickly (as in, over a week's worth of time).

[dataweaver]

I could see ways to expand that notion further: let players engaged in Impulse Buys for other characters, as long as their character is suitably involved.

Buying Success? If my character has successfully attempted to influence the result of your roll, why not allow me to buy success for you?

Player Guidance? There's nothing in the rules that states that the element that the player is trying to get introduced into the scene must be something that his own character benefits from. His character still needs to be proactive (Player Guidance follows from a roll made by that player's character); but someone else can be the beneficiary of the new element. Likewise with Trading Points for Money: rather than getting a windfall for himself, the player's character might serve as a catalyst for another character getting a windfall.

Survival? That might be a neat way to amp up the effectiveness of a medic — though it wouldn't be something I'd recommend unless the character has a personal stake in saving that particular patient. And why should a player be able to resurrect an Ally but not another PC?

Amazing Feats? As with Buying Success, I could see a player whose character is supporting someone else's feat being able to pay for that other character to benefit from an Opt-In Option. And the Changing the World option is already built around the idea of spending points for laying changes to something other than the character.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

I don't think I've ever actually used the skill degradation rule — not because I don't think it's realistic or believable (I have no doubt that it is), but because it adds bookkeeping, and does so for the most banal of purposes I can imagine.

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.

[dataweaver]

Power-Ups 3: Talents has the Job Training trait (pp.25–26) which is explicitly learnable. Interestingly, it also has a built-in “Maintaining Job Training”; and although it says that points lost this way are gone, it also says that they can be regained at double speed — which sounds to me almost like they're held in reserve until you decide to renew your training.