11-18-2019, 03:12 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
The argument for exponential skill costs
GURPS 4e skill costs are on a doubling scale for the first two levels before turning flat; physical skills in 3e actually had four doublings. There is, however, a reasonable argument for keeping doubling forever.
This basically amounts to how you define define what it even means to be point balanced. There are two basic methods: you balance against the world, or you balance against player preferences. The first is very hard to do and tends to wind up with quite variable costs, but the second has some known solutions. Consider a simple analogy: points are raffle tickets. When a game starts, you put as many tickets as you want into a bunch of pots that represent skills. When a skill challenge comes up, the GM reaches into a pot and pulls out a ticket, and whatever ticket the GM pulls out was the most successful. The GM might also toss tickets into the pot, in which case a GM ticket being pulled out means none of the player succeeded. If player A puts 2 tickets into a pot and player B puts one, player A wins 2/3 of the time. If player A puts twenty tickets into a pot and player B puts ten, again, A wins 2/3 of the time. Since the odds of winning in a GURPS style quick contest is purely a function of relative skill, this suggests that doubling your points spent should produce a flat skill bonus. As for what bonus that should be: a quick contest with a skill difference of 0 is even odds (with about 10% ties). For other common differences:
There are a number of aspects of this that would need more development (for example, fighting ability is not just a function of combat skill, it also depends on ST and HT and other abilities) but it seems like a reasonable start point for discussion. |
11-18-2019, 03:29 PM | #2 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
Quote:
|
|
11-18-2019, 03:47 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Nov 2015
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
Or they might not raise anything, since they will not have the points for it, might as well cap attributes at that point, and if you want to keep doubling the cost of skills, cap those as well, it's faster.
|
11-18-2019, 03:59 PM | #4 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-18-2019, 04:48 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: earth....I think.
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
Quote:
over six to be a Soldier. etc. There are very few jobs that require few skills to do, let alone so few skills to learn to do said job. The way around this would be to use wildcard skills. |
|
11-18-2019, 04:59 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
Quote:
|
|
11-18-2019, 05:50 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
What problem is exponential skill cost supposed to be solving exactly? There is already a doubling of cost every level up to 8 CP, but it plateaus at 4 CP per level due to diminishing returns. The only thing that I can see it doing is making advantages and techniqiues more attractive.
For example, let use say that every level in a skill and attribute costs twice as much as the previous one. At HT 12 [20] and Sex Appeal (A) HT+2 [8]-14, I am paying 28 CP for attribute plus skill. To increase Sex Appeal to 20, I either spend an extra 1260 CP on HT or an extra 504 CP on Sex Appeal. Or I can spend 30 CP on Allure 4 and Voice. |
11-18-2019, 06:04 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
What makes you think I was posting about solving a problem?
|
11-18-2019, 06:07 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
Quote:
|
|
11-18-2019, 06:37 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: The argument for exponential skill costs
Quote:
It would probably work better to change the die rolling mechanism so linear skill cost is actually appropriate, though this is challenging for other reasons. |
|
|
|