Extra heads and peripheral/360 vision.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Yes, yes. Sometimes, I wish CP costs in GURPS books (especially Basic) were based on a clear middle ground setting or given as a range based on campaign styles. Yes, that is a lot to ask; wishing doesn't mean I want to pay someone to do that much work. XP

Thing is what's a middle ground setting in this context, i.e. a theoretical setting where every advantage and disadvantage was going to be used equally so base rate comparison can be established?

A range would work but ultimately without a specific campaign in mind it's basically going to be "if you think this will be twice as useful in your campaign as default, cost it as twice the points in your campaign".

Then you have the point that the way the system works for different activities it costs more points to buy competency for one concept than another. E.g the oft quoted navy seals who end up needing hundreds of points to cover the real life required aspects of being high end spec ops soldiers that are also defined in game, but I can build the greatest chemist of their generation by buying up one or two skills.
This isn't a complaint it's just pointing out as a RPG the system focusses on some stuff more than others, and "stuff" costs cps.

TBH I think a much better bet is as GM to to just adjust the cost of stuff to fit your game or campaign. Since really it's you who has best idea of what going to work in you game.

Which is I think the theory behind stuff like unusal background and troupe switchs/tweaks etc

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

TBH I think a much better bet is as GM to to just adjust the cost of stuff to fit your game or campaign. Since really it's you who has best idea of what going to work in you game.

I realize this is not the first part of your post, but it highlights a fundamental issue:

To do this, you need a foundational reference. When something is presented as "neutral" with regards to campaign switches or setting specifics, but it generally takes experience or a lot of research and discussion to realize that it is not, it makes it tricky to adjust the price accordingly.

I had more to say, mostly in an attempt to clarify things I've already said, but I don't want this point to get lost. Not like I have to rush and make my points before a bunch of comments leave this one pages behind the rest. ;)

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I realize this is not the first part of your post, but it highlights a fundamental issue:

To do this, you need a foundational reference. When something is presented as "neutral" with regards to campaign switches or setting specifics, but it generally takes experience or a lot of research and discussion to realize that it is not, it makes it tricky to adjust the price accordingly.

I had more to say, mostly in an attempt to clarify things I've already said, but I don't want this point to get lost. Not like I have to rush and make my points before a bunch of comments leave this one pages behind the rest. ;)

I do agree with your point about experience etc when delving deeply into this

But TBH I think the current costs given kind of are that foundational reference, it may not be perfect but we are talking about costs that have been poked and prodded and looked at over a while now.

The thing is yes it might be great to have a huge matrix of cross referenced advantages and disadvantages down one side and genre/setting types along the top.

But I can't help but think we'd just end up swapping a debate about "is 15pts for combat reflexes right" in abstract for debates about "is 25pts for combat reflexes right for gritty WW2 band of brothers campaigns, 15pts for two fisted pulp action campaign, and 5pts for Miss Marple investigates / sparkling cyanide campaigns" possibly with added "they don't have my genre/setting" and "I disagree with the assumptions made about genre/setting X". As well as having a monster spreadsheet in the rule book :-)!

And of course that leaves aside some pricing that has come about for meta-game reasons. Combat reflexes is famously underpriced compared to the sum of it's parts. But that's partly because there has been a conscious choice to encourage it's use as it keeps PCs alive, and PC's dying droves can have an impact on games even if the setting has PC death as a reasonable risk.

Then of course you get into the possible questions of are some Enhancements and limitations themselves priced differently according to setting/genre separately from the advantages that might get added onto! I.e lost of moving parts and interacting variables here once you start delving into it.

[dcarson]

Part of what makes SEALS so expensive and greatest chemist so cheap is templates that define all that a SEAL needs and the range of that need. A template for a combat character that just has Co,bat Skill [20] and nothing else is as cheap as Chemistry [20]. Start to build a realistic great chemist template that has

a Talent
Reptation
one of
Tenure
Patron
Wealth with Independent Income

Acute Taste and Smell

and skills like
Teaching
Research
Writing
Math
Biology
Physics

and you get a lot closer on point cost.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by dcarson

Part of what makes SEALS so expensive and greatest chemist so cheap is templates that define all that a SEAL needs and the range of that need. A template for a combat character that just has Co,bat Skill [20] and nothing else is as cheap as Chemistry [20]. Start to build a realistic great chemist template that has

a Talent
Reptation
one of
Tenure
Patron
Wealth with Independent Income

Acute Taste and Smell

and skills like
Teaching
Research
Writing
Math
Biology
Physics

and you get a lot closer on point cost.

Only while I certainly agree you can broaden "World's greatest chemist" out wider than just a high chemistry skill, you can do that with a Navy seal past the core combat skills as well.

And the point is there isn't a single combat skill is there. And that's before we get into comparing how chemistry 20 acts in the system compared to say rifles 20. Or come to that how combat leverages the other basic stats as well

[AlexanderHowl]

You only need to be good at one skill to be a professional chemist, you need to be good at dozens of skills to be an average SEAL. There are nearly 100,000 professional chemists in the USA while there are only 6,600 active and reserve Navy SEALS. A Navy SEAL have a much higher template cost than a chemist because of the minimum physical and mental requirements (and minimum skill levels).

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

You only need to be good at one skill to be a professional chemist, you need to be good at dozens of skills to be an average SEAL. There are nearly 100,000 professional chemists in the USA while there are only 6,600 active and reserve Navy SEALS. A Navy SEAL have a much higher template cost than a chemist because of the minimum physical and mental requirements (and minimum skill levels).

That's why the set up is best chemist in their generation or best chemist in the world, I'm thinking in terms of nobel prize winning (although yes I know "nobel prize winning' adds it's own complications here for any comparison)

[AlexanderHowl]

Then you are talking about a chemist who is probably beyond the capabilities of a Navy SEAL because there have been only 177 winners of the Noble Prize for Chemistry in over a century. I would start a generic Noble Laurette with IQ 16 [120], HT 12 [20], Natural Scientist 4 [40], Reputation +4 (Scientist of their specialty, All of the Time) [10], Tenure [5], and Wealth (Wealthy) [20]. I would give them another forty points for traits and required thirty-five points of disadvantages. I would also give them Scientific Skill (H) IQ+9 [24]-25 or Scientific Skill Specialty (H) IQ+9 [24]-25, another 16 points in other scientific skills, and another 40 points in skills accumulated over their career. You would end up with a character template worth 300 points (and who could probably also function as an inventor without much difficulty).

[Celjabba]

6000 Seal out of ... 600000 marines+navy personnal ? So you should look at the top 1000 chemist. But yes, apple and oranges due to the physical requirements on the Seals side.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Then you are talking about a chemist who is probably beyond the capabilities of a Navy SEAL because there have been only 177 winners of the Noble Prize for Chemistry in over a century. I would start a generic Noble Laurette with IQ 16 [120], HT 12 [20], Natural Scientist 4 [40], Reputation +4 (Scientist of their specialty, All of the Time) [10], Tenure [5], and Wealth (Wealthy) [20]. I would give them another forty points for traits and required thirty-five points of disadvantages. I would also give them Scientific Skill (H) IQ+9 [24]-25 or Scientific Skill Specialty (H) IQ+9 [24]-25, another 16 points in other scientific skills, and another 40 points in skills accumulated over their career. You would end up with a character template worth 300 points (and who could probably also function as an inventor without much difficulty).

Why do nobel winners in chemistry have default HT12? Also you've gone high IQ and talent there, you could just as easily build that high Chemistry off IQ12 and save some points.

Either way I think the point is not so much there's a points value associated with being within a certain frequency within a population. It's more that due to the system being unevenly focussed on different endeavours different areas cost different amounts to excel in.

I.e. the statement "a chemist who is probably beyond the capabilities of a Navy SEAL" is while in abstract true*, is also an impossible comparison to make because what are you testing them on? Who's a better chemist, who's a better soldier, who can cook a better curry, who belongs to the group with the least amount of recognisable members. In abstract the last is meaningless as rarity doesn't automatically equate to value anyway.



*but it's just as true the other way round