Balancing High Size Modifier

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Sindri

The issue is that they suffer as much as their strong brethren but aren't compensated equally because some of their compensation is hidden in ST costs.

You mean there are sub-optimal builds? I never knew!

I would worry more about the -3 racial penalty to IQ an Ogre has.

[Flyndaran]

They really should've kept the inconvenient size disadvantage from 3rd.
SM+1 is a huge problem, while SM+3 isn't much worse than SM+2.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anders

You mean there are sub-optimal builds? I never knew!

I would worry more about the -3 racial penalty to IQ an Ogre has.

Unnecessary handicaps to some concepts and major point crocks to others isn't something to gloss over.
It's like how cannot wear armor gives more points the less problem it causes.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Unnecessary handicaps to some concepts and major point crocks to others isn't something to gloss over.

Not getting a bonus is not the same as getting a penalty. And some concepts are more difficult to build than others. What if it's a scholar that never gets into fights - should he get a bonus because he doesn't get a combat penalty?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anders

Not getting a bonus is not the same as getting a penalty. And some concepts are more difficult to build than others. What if it's a scholar that never gets into fights - should he get a bonus because he doesn't get a combat penalty?

Selective enforcement isn't kosher. Most people involved in fights didn't choose to do so.
The fact is that positive SM's negative aspects are supposed to be covered by the highly varied price reduction to increased strength. When SM problems are the same for all character concepts, not merely the strong who get more point breaks.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only its not really a key part of the genre is my point.

That's fair.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Something that extra ST more than compensates for as per the other points.

A SM +1 ST 20 character gains back 10 points for his investment in strength. Depending on the percentage of encumbrance devoted to gear and what encumbrance level you want to be at you may or may not be able to pay for the increased encumbrance with that. Aside from being a weird way to balance things the strength discount is supposed to pay for other disadvantages in positive SM so spending a lot of it fixing encumbrance isn't good.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Well by that definition anyone over 6' is SM+1, is that how you run it?

Either way there's also the point that if the other two dimensions are both much smaller than the longest you go down SM, which I think is where being skinny comes in.

I interpret that as being the technical rules which puts me in SM +1 like I said in the OP. It's pretty common to fudge things and pretend that humans aren't taller than 6' for the purposes of SM though.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

It kind of does that's what synergistic means, especially if your also reducing the cost of that advantage (which SM does)

It doesn't matter how flexible it is because that is taken into account with the point cost. It doesn't matter that it is synergistic because negative SM is also synergistic and gurps assumes a certain level of minmaxing to begin with.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

"Unusual background" says otherwise

Unusual background is bad. It's only legitimate when it indicates abilities that do things like punch above their weight because no one expects them.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Not in this instance, SM+1 doesn't cost points (it trades vs. other things though) moreover ST is cheaper, so they will actually be same ST for less, or more ST for same points.

Yes in this instance. That stronger characters are capable of leveraging those talents into other effects is what the point cost represents. People who have spent points in other areas can leverage those things into money. The discount of ST is a balancing mechanism for SM being overcosted. It's supposed to end up giving the same level of generalized power.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

They would have the same issues as lower than average ST larger creature

They do not have the same issues since they do not interact with the SM ST discount.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

OK, but in this instance your arguing that the net balance of advantages to advantages is more than 10 points in the disadvantage's favor?

I am not arguing with that level of specificity. Those 10 points are part of the positive SM trait's advantages.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

The problem we've got here is the that balance is going to be so dependent on campaign setting I'd say it going to be impossible to come up with a general equation here. (eve more so than some other advantages where this is an issue)

Game design deals with this level of impossibility on a regular basis and manages to function.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I'd argue that deciding weather or not a solution is needed is part and parcel of discussing what's a reasonable solution. i.e no solution could = the correct solution

In practice a great deal of topics rarely get anywhere because the people who do think it's a problem spent most of their time arguing with people who don't instead of coming up with solutions that would, whether in general a good idea or not, satisfy their frustrations with the rules.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I really don't think saying no to characters wanting to be SM+1 and 1lb as being that (well unless they are a magically animated balloon animal)

Sure it's easy to snap decide no there. But the incentive structure here is incentivizing the players to come up with characters who weigh as little as possible and repeatedly asking and answering about progressively heavier weights is not a useful methodology.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

If Lead people are truly going to be setting thing I could just factor in some density multiplier between flesh and lead, job done.

At which point you are defacto saying that armour weight scales by volume instead of mass. So why not say that?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Which are already in the rules

SM is not volume.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Why?

Because it is unavoidable. Either you do it beforehand, you do it upon being queried by players or the players do it for you and throw away some efficacy in order to not be jerks.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only if not wearing armour is legitimate choice (presumably because of some specific effect that replaces/invalidates) then you will already have paid for that in other advantages.

They have paid to remove the downsides of "having to wear armour" not "having to wear armour and also getting to sink this stat that means nothing for me". It's like having a "I can use magic stat" and letting people who can in no way interact with that stat buy it down. It's problematic.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But that's the same as saying a weak ST7 SM0 human is penalised by missing out on the -1 to be hit , that a averagely strong ST7 SM-1 halfling gets.

I have to say ultimately I think in terms of absolute points values doesn't work for SM, because the ads/dis-ads are so wide ranging and dependent on setting.

All else equal someone who hasn't got -1 to be hit is missing out compared to someone who hasn't. Which means that if that trait is not costed as an advantage it must either be balanced in and of itself or the other person must have a net advantage of their own.

And yes pricing absolute points values are hard. Game design is hard. No disrespect to the authors of gurps but they are mortals just as you and I and they had to price absolute points values in wildly different situations and the resultant game system hasn't totally flipped out. It's hard and it's possible and making something better is good even if you can't make it perfect.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Personally I don't value rules by their ability to tackle the incredibly unlikely or daft (I can do that myself without recourse to rules) rather I value rules by their ability to deal with issues that are are more likely and a lot less fringe.

Well certainly. I don't need rules to tell me that a normal human can't psychically explode the sun even if they try really hard. That isn't comparable however to rules saying "pick a value for this trait" and offering no guidelines for off limit values for normal humans.

Originally Posted by Anders

Not getting a bonus is not the same as getting a penalty. And some concepts are more difficult to build than others. What if it's a scholar that never gets into fights - should he get a bonus because he doesn't get a combat penalty?

It is precisely the same.

And yeah, gurps doesn't reimburse you for ineffective character design. If you build the best kicker in the world whose mind got moved into the body without legs.. well that's just too bad. In obvious situations of lost utility there is room for gm niceness but it generally assumes effective character design.

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

Off the top of my head, for positive SMs:

In addition to the SM discount, for 0 points Base ST = 10 + SM

If that isn't enough of a boost:

Base ST = 10 + [SM x 2]

I think we can do better than changing base ST by SM. Remember more atomization, not less.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Sindri

I think we can do better than changing base ST by SM. Remember more atomization, not less.

Ok, how would you fix it then?

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

Ok, how would you fix it then?

Well that's what this thread is for : ).

But seriously I'd rather just make it a disadvantage that lets you buy up ST or whatever else you want.

[Varyon]

I've updated and cleaned up my mass and volume system. I'll take some of the lessons from there to tackle SM.

As I outlined previously in the thread, most of the effects of SM work out to be Features. The exceptions are Consumption (which should be handled on a case-by-case basis - an SM+5 dragon and SM-2 halfling each needing to eat as much per day as an SM+0 human may be perfectly appropriate), mass-based grappling effects, and weight/cost of gear. I'm ignoring the wounding modifier houserules here, which result in [+24] to the worth of each level of positive SM, [-24] to the worth of each level of negative SM.

SM+1 means, on average, x3.4 to body weight and x2 to weight/cost of gear. The former is worth around [9], the latter is worth [-20]. Thus, SM+1 is worth [-11]. SM+2 means, on average, x8 to body weight and x5 to weight/cost of gear. The former is worth around [19], the latter is worth around [-61]. Thus, SM+2 is worth [-42]. SM+3 means, on average, x27 to body weight and x10 to weight/cost of gear. The former is worth around [42], the latter is worth around [-108]. Thus, SM+3 is worth [-66]. This means, for the 10%/SM discount on ST to be "worth it," an SM+1 character needs ST 21, and SM+2 character needs ST 31, and an SM+3 character needs ST 32.
On the other side of things, SM-2 is x1/8 to body weight and x1/5 to weight/cost of gear. The former is worth around [-6], the latter is worth around [28]. Thus, SM-2 is worth [22] - you'll need to drop to around ST 8 or so to offset it.

Personally, I prefer to dispense with the ST discount hack and just have SM as a trait that costs points (positive or negative, depending on how you work things out).

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Varyon

As I outlined previously in the thread, most of the effects of SM work out to be Features.

I did a blog post on this a while back. Maybe some of those things I'm counting as worth -1 are actually features, but the big ones look like actual advantages/disadvantages.