Stop Spending Earned Character Points

[Tyneras]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

I generally don't use Time-Server in my games; it carries the implication that the reason why someone plateaus in his job is because of some sort of “burn-out” mentality — which, while it does happen, isn't the reason why most people plateau: for most people, it's simply a matter that they aren't insatiable learners: they want to know what they need to to do their jobs, and are satisfied once they can do that.

If anything, a mindset that keeps you perpetually looking for something new to learn about your job, and thus always benefiting from on-the-job training, is the exception to the rule and ought to be represented by a perk. And I'd be leery about that too, because another part of the tendency to plateau is that the more you know, the harder it is to learn something new: people stop trying to learn new things about the job because of diminishing returns from their efforts: after a while, it stops being with the effort. It's not a mental block; it's more a matter of setting priorities.

All of this is neatly captured by the aforementioned optional rule requiring you to spend character points as well as time in order to improve a skill.

People generally learn because they have too, either they have a goal or they are uncomfortable with their currently level of competence in a task. I like the idea of OTJT requiring a perk rather than being default, or maybe requiring a perk to use OTJT go beyond the first point in a skill, but allowing you to get that first point without the perk.

If I was house ruling it, unless your modified skill level is 12 or less, you don't learn anything from the task. You simply aren't challenged enough to get useful experience from it. No matter how many thousands of hours you spend repeating 1+1=2, you will not learn calculus from it. School is the refined art of keeping students right on the edge of that challenge to maximize learning.

This means that, once enough time has been spent to buy off familiarity penalties, most people will likely not qualify for on the job learning since average stats, 1 or 2 skill points and TDMs put them over that threshold.

Even ostensibly challenging high end jobs like engineer likely fall into this if they keep getting the same task over and over. A lot of people might have Technique(My Job) instead of more base skill as well.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

it carries the implication that the reason why someone plateaus in his job is because of some sort of “burn-out” mentality — which, while it does happen, isn't the reason why most people plateau: for most people, it's simply a matter that they aren't insatiable learners: they want to know what they need to to do their jobs, and are satisfied once they can do that.

For me, it's always good to rely more on the mechanic than the flavor. There are tons of reasons why people would plateau at a job and the quirk mechanically covers the range well (just rename the quirk ;). But that last part is super important; being an insatiable learner can help you improve but I would also have that be a quirk or disad of some kind (makes me think of Workaholic).

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Honestly, I do not really believe that people plateau in skills, they just reach a point of diminishing returns, so they turn their attention to developing new skills.

I'd love to see anything that supports that, but even if we consider it being true, it still means that the job skill can plateau. They might just have nothing to train when at the job and the diminishing returns are so little that it's below the resolution of a skill point in GURPS.

Originally Posted by Plane

I'm thinking you'd actually have to fulfill the minimum requirement (skill 12) before counting as joining the job and getting the instant skill point, which would mean a minimum DX of 17?

I honestly don't get job rules in GURPS. Like, I functioned just as well as everyone else at my first job (fast food) in just a day of training and a week on the job and that seems to be true of anyone who wants the job they have from what I've seen. At least for Struggling jobs, I think you can likely get away with much worse than a 12 (if I'm wrong, then I'm wondering why my player decided to put so many points into Professional Skill: Fast Food for me to have it at 12+).

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

People generally learn because they have too, either they have a goal or they are uncomfortable with their currently level of competence in a task. I like the idea of OTJT requiring a perk rather than being default, or maybe requiring a perk to use OTJT go beyond the first point in a skill, but allowing you to get that first point without the perk.

If I was house ruling it, unless your modified skill level is 12 or less, you don't learn anything from the task. You simply aren't challenged enough to get useful experience from it. No matter how many thousands of hours you spend repeating 1+1=2, you will not learn calculus from it. School is the refined art of keeping students right on the edge of that challenge to maximize learning.

This means that, once enough time has been spent to buy off familiarity penalties, most people will likely not qualify for on the job learning since average stats, 1 or 2 skill points and TDMs put them over that threshold.

Even ostensibly challenging high end jobs like engineer likely fall into this if they keep getting the same task over and over. A lot of people might have Technique(My Job) instead of more base skill as well.

I'm generally not a fan of filling out a time sheet and tracking a character's skull development hour by hour, which is why I prefer Back to School's “Study as a Job” approach — which as written addresses regular study, self-study, and intensive training, but not on-the-job training. Thus, the house rules I suggested earlier in the thread about on-the-job training for the Study as a Job approach.

But the relevance to the current discussion is that that house rule included a factor whereby the more you know, the harder it is to learn more; and conversely, that you can offset that by seeking out challenges. If you're not in an environment where you can seek out more advanced challenges the more skilled you get, your on-the-job training will plateau.

And that doesn't apply to the other modes of training as a job, even self-study, because of what you said about school being the refund art of keeping students right on the edge of that challenge to maximize learning: the assumption is that if you have a teacher, or at least study materials in the case of self-study, you are implicitly seeking out tasks that challenge your current level of skill. A teacher is more effective at doing so than study materials are, which is why you don't learn as fast with the latter; but outside of on-the-job training, the plateau isn't really there.

At least, not until you surpass your teacher. Whether it be a live person or study materials, you will eventually reach a point where the teacher simply no longer has anything more to teach you; and you're back to using the on-the-job training rules until you can find a better teacher.

---

If you are using the time-based study rules, I like the “realism” suggestion that Back to School makes of requiring character points as well as study time, because I see character points nicely abstracting the notion of “did you challenge yourself?” But even if you're not a fan of requiring both, some of the suggestions from that section can still apply: much of those rules are about when it would be suitable to spend points on learning, and those rules can be recast as “when is it suitable to generate the on-the-job training hours”? In particular, you don't get to spend points to improve a skill if you're regularly taking advantage of the +4 bonus for routine use of that skill, which is what most ordinary people do in the regular course of their days.

Put in a guideline that this restriction doesn't apply if you're inadequately skilled (I'd tend to set “adequate” at 2 skill points since that's what's needed to buy off the attribute penalty for an Average skill), and you get something to the effect of what you're describing, where an ordinary person OJTs the first two skill points and then gets by on that and the aforementioned +4 “routine use” bonus.

[AlexanderHowl]

2 CP is not sufficient for an average person to do any Average Income job. That is the person who has a major screwup every few weeks and will likely be the first person fired during a downturn in business. The average person needs 8 CP to really be considered competent, as they will only then have a major screwup every few months.

[dataweaver]

Does that estimate include the +4 bonus for routine use of skills?

[AlexanderHowl]

The bonus to routine tasks do not apply to job requirements or monthly job rolls (and the analysis does include the +4 for routine tasks). If you do not have the required level of skill, people will fire you as soon as they find out, which is one of the reasons why many jobs give the new person a heavy workload, to properly access their skills. So, a new person might be required to complete a series of tasks in half the normal amount of time, just so that their supervisors can see how badly they fail at them. Even in fast food restaurants, I have seen people be fired on the first day because they obviously did not have the required skill levels that would have come from their stated experience.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by GWJ

And what exactly is the problem?

Maybe look at this?
[url]http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/power-ups/power-ups5/[/url

Originally Posted by Maz

You could consider playing with some of the options for spending CP during play. See for instance "Buying success" (p.347) or "Flesh Wounds" (p.417) in Campaigns.

Some of us have, indeed, used these options. But, for example, one of my PCs that's been played for almost two years has 14+ in his most often used skills and has Luck, so almost always can do things he wants without needing those.

Originally Posted by Agemegos

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.

That's fits pretty well with what we have sometimes. If we have a character we like as they are, we may want to keep them that way. Even if he doesn't improve in his field, we don't necessarily want Sherlock Holmes to earn a million pounds, or become a lady's man, or be skilled enough to be a professional ballet dancer.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Honestly, I do not really believe that people plateau in skills, they just reach a point of diminishing returns, so they turn their attention to developing new skills.

Without naming names, think of those listed among the greatest Rock 'n' Roll composers of the 1960s and the critically-acclaimed, award-winning songs they created when they were in their 20s. Then compare that to the number of critically-acclaimed songs they created in their 30s and 40s. Or look at gold medalist 100 metre dash runners and see how many of them won it 20 year later. It's rare for someone to even win it two Olympics in a row. If they kept getting better, they'd be more likely to win the more they did it.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

Without naming names, think of those listed among the greatest Rock 'n' Roll composers of the 1960s and the critically-acclaimed, award-winning songs they created when they were in their 20s. Then compare that to the number of critically-acclaimed songs they created in their 30s and 40s. Or look at gold medalist 100 metre dash runners and see how many of them won it 20 year later. It's rare for someone to even win it two Olympics in a row. If they kept getting better, they'd be more likely to win the more they did it.

Real life has a natural decay of skills that aren't used and physical ability that isn't used frequently for anyone past 25ish years old. In particular, physical skills and abilities deteriorate faster and require more work to maintain or improve the older you get. GURPS doesn't model this at all, making it just as easy for a 60 year old to maintain or improve their athletic ability as it is for an 18 year old.

[dataweaver]

Not so. B294 has a section on Maintaining Skills, which allows skills to decay if not properly maintained; Back to School builds on this on p.6.

There's also the matter of Aging rolls, which could be extended for wider use in a similar manner.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Dalin

Great topic.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Dalin

The PCs started at 100 points and began to stop spending points...for the most part, they just engaged with the world, the large cast of NPCs, and the sprawling plot without spending their points.

Honestly, this felt like a big win to me. Ultimately, engaging with the fiction is what it's all about....

For most of my PCs and campaigns, that's where I want the primary focus.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

I play in a long running Cliffhangers campaign with switching GMs....

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.)

Originally Posted by johndallman

It's different for very high-level characters in early versions of D&D. A great deal of their power is in weird and unique magical items, enormous spell lists, one-off abilities and the like. Eventually they become very hard work to play. GURPS allows for more character growth without starting to bend the system.

I agree. Another thing GURPS makes possible is having a 150 point PC playing next to a 400 point one. Still, not everyone would want it that way (see immediately above.)

Originally Posted by bocephus

No, I have never seen this....If its gritty realism in the modern world and you aren't intending for the chars to really evolve faster than something like 10CP a year.

Gritty realism, sure. But a current campaign is not gritty realism or modern. The focus of the campaign is that we're people of average or below income who are just trying to pass our classes or do our jobs--and who keep running into thieves, crazed cultists, demonic flying monkeys, etc. If a PC becomes rich or a routine slayer of demons, they no longer fit the campaign.

Originally Posted by bocephus

(Primary Skill Alden calls it, a concept that really doesnt belong in GURPS games IMO).,,,I have acquired real skills that have nothing to do with my "Primary Skill", a concept that only makes sense inside of some game constrain I haven't understood yet.

Certainly you can conceive of GURPS as you wish. But Primary Skill(s) is a fundamental concept of character templates.

Another example is in the GURPS Basic Set, p. 218, where it says:

In worlds with working ritual magic, Ritual Magic skill is the primary skill of sorcerers.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Traditionally we were based in London, but half a year ago we for some reason decided to move to Munich. That quickly went sour, and now we're in Shanghai. That means new Area Knowledges, Current Affairs, Language annd other skills to train....And of course, you can always blow points on social advantages! Several of the characters right now have some Wealth and Status, but Reputation is also important.

Good example. I have an Unaging PC who has traveled from world to world, dimension to dimension, for many years my time-- and who has worked in over a dozen professions. That one I have no problem finding reasons to spend points on things like the above.