Magic 4e: Cure Insanity?

[Kax]

Originally Posted by hal

Simply hit them with a new disadvantage if they manage to fix the issue without paying character points. After all, they OWE on those points. You're the proverbial "Points Loan Shark" who can kneecap the character, burn his (the player character's!) house, give him a bad rep, etc - all because you say so.

That's actually the same accounting problem you are against.

Match point value one way or the other: have the 'cash' in hand, or pay for it with a 'loan' of another disad of the same value.


The way I've normally seen this handled is 'you're psychologically/physically ready to accept this change' when you have enough CP. Sometimes, if you're short, you can get a small disad to 'cover' the difference.

Same with the huge amount of money: if you spend your share like water you don't get a wealth increase, but 'invest' (spend the CP on wealth) and you get richer long-term.

Levelled systems are actually doing the same thing; you have to save up enough XP to gain a level and have the cool stuff, but with no possibility of getting an XP 'loan' and getting something ahead of time.

The problem isn't with GURPS, it's with the concept of character balance in games. And this exists because it's a game.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I disagree, considering the number of ways to just give enemies Disadvantages in spells, and the various other Disad removing spells, Restoration, Remove Curse, Permanent Possession, Exchange Bodies, Dispel Possession, Stone to Flesh, Great Wish, Cure Disease, Restore Memory, Regeneration, Youth, Resurrection...

There's a solution: allow Cure Disease to work on mental diseases. Still CP cost, as diseases can cost CP from 1 to 100 depending on the unpleasantness.

If you don't have the CP the problem isn't permanently cured, but the GM may allow you to buy it down progressively with successive Cure Disease casts and CP injections.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Kax

That's actually the same accounting problem you are against.

Match point value one way or the other: have the 'cash' in hand, or pay for it with a 'loan' of another disad of the same value.

To an extent, you're correct. When dealing with the Accounting, you're still going to deal with "Accounting" either way.

The difference is - you're not treating the magic healing spells differently because one is for a character who suffers from an accounting imbalance, while the other character does not. The spell works the same regardless.

That was the point I was trying to make, but failed my writing skill roll *teasing grin*.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by hal

This is largely one of my "peeves" as a GM when it comes to SJGames GURPS...

I deal with this via two methods:

In a non-DF game I don't allow PCs to take disads that can easily be done away with. If they really want that "One Hand" disad for character flavor, then they agree to not get rid of it, or to pay it off in the future, or at least make a quest out of it.

In DF I don't care. That level of munkinism is to be rewarded, if you can survive the first delve and pay to have your hand regenerated, Go For It. Heck, if you want to start with less gear and pay for it before leaving for the first delve, Go For It.

After all, I'll be handing out new disads (one arm, one leg, one eye, mednesses, etc) like candy...





Side note: I'm enjoying the digression, but I am still waiting for a Person In The Know to roll in here and slap down a "why Cure Insanity was removed".. or at least I'm still hoping... but with Kickstarter Fever plaguing the peeps in charge, I suspect this was a bad time to ask the question.

[Michael Cule]

In one of my games the question of why spells to cure conditions sometimes caused side effects and sometimes didn't was subject to scientific investigation and the mages developed a 'Detect Good Karma' spell which told them the level of stored 'positive Destiny' a person who was seeking aid might have.

For PCs of course their players could just look at the character sheet but it became an 'in-universe' thing. An NPC would go to the mage for a consult and get:

"I'm afraid I can't repair your crippled limb without the risk of some compensatory side effect, Guildmaster. I would suggest that you might want to spend some time working with the poor and sickly unless you want to risk what happened to Lady Stackley."

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Side note: I'm enjoying the digression, but I am still waiting for a Person In The Know to roll in here and slap down a "why Cure Insanity was removed".. or at least I'm still hoping... but with Kickstarter Fever plaguing the peeps in charge, I suspect this was a bad time to ask the question.

I assume that's pretty hopeless. Even if SJG were in the habit of commenting on this sort of stuff - which they often don't, this is a minor detail about a 15 year old rush job. Even if whoever made the choice (presumably Michael Suileabhain-Wilson) were here, I doubt he could do much better than make a plausible guess.