Powers with Gadget Limitations - is it the thing?

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

Next, points have *an explicit conversion to $; [1] is worth $500. As such, the first power you designed is worth $1,500; the second power is worth $500 (if either were bought with cash).

* Well, actually, they have a number of conversions to $, but this is the one that's relevant for "loose points", as far as I know.

Where are you getting this from? Points don't have a set value in terms of money. If nothing else, it needs to scale by Tech Level.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

Where are you getting this from? Points don't have a set value in terms of money. If nothing else, it needs to scale by Tech Level.

True; I confused the GURPS rules with the Dungeon Fantasy rules. My mistake.

The rules for trading points for cash in GURPS are on B26, and allow [1] to be traded for +10% of "the campaign's average starting wealth." This increase is implicitly added to your spending cash; there's also a note that said points are gone permanently.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

Thanks.

Ah; I understand your point, now.

I would argue that $10,000,000 price and nature as a gemstone automatically includes "can be stolen" at the -40% level, and needs to be payed for with either a commensurate number of points, or a commensurate number of dollars.

For points, I'd apply the "Can be stolen" limitation, as well as any other limitation that seems applicable to the jewel itself, and require [1] for each remaining full or partial $500; that is, *[20] for the full $10,000.

For dollars, I would probably charge the full $10,000; but this could be purchased using ordinary wealth, which scales well, and is fairly replaceable with job rolls.

For a sword, what you are paying for with said innate attack with gadget (can be stolen, breakable); and other limitations, is a sword.

That is, in the case of the jewel, the jewel itself is a physical item separate from the ability/ies it supplies. In the case of the sword, the physical item is the ability/ies it supplies.

So, "it depends", I guess.

I was suggesting a price of 10 millions, not 10 thousands :)

As I said, I am all for making the player pay for the utility but there are concerns :

case 1 :

The player have
luck (gadget based, can be stolen -20%) [12] :
an amulet that can be easily snatched away (temporarily, he will recover it after some significant time or effort) but cannot be destroyed and will not work for someone else.
He gain back 3 cp for having his luck "steal-able".

The player will likely object if he then have to pay 20cp because the amulet is a 10 thousand $ precious jewel and fall back on a $15 zirconium on plated zinc, or drop the gadget limitation.
If we agree that the item cannot be sold or mortgaged as a jewel by the player, and have no uses or benefit other than the luck charm, I would let him have the appearance he want for free - after all, it will make it more likely to be stolen.

Otherwise, in most case, he will end up paying more cp for the item than he get back from the gadget limitation ... not exactly interesting.


case 2 :

The player have an ultimate weapon represented as a bunch of innate attacks and other alternate abilities. Lets call it a "silence glaive"

It cannot be destroyed, if it goes through a big crunch-big bang cycle, it will be there on the other side, it cannot disappear or be taken away, drop it into the sun or in a black hole and the next time the character power up, the glaive will appear in his hand.
It is worth -0% as a gadget, it is just a special visual effect of the power.

That said, it is a very fine physical glaive, it can be used to hit someone, to pry a door open or even as a tent pole if you wanted to.

How much do you pay for that indestructible bladed staff that always return to you ?
Here, no question, the player have to pay for it.
But how much ?
Just a normal glaive price ?
Should the player pay for
-signature gear (the "cannot be permanently lost" bit) ?
-unbreakability (orichalcum price ?)

[AlexanderHowl]

Since a character could (relatively) easily sell the diamond for money, I would rule that they would need to include the diamond in their adventuring assets, requiring high levels of Wealth. For example, a TL8 character would need Multimillionaire 2 to justify putting $10 million in a single gem (it would represent 25% of their adventuring gear). Unless it gives Super Luck, the fact that it gives its owner strange powers is probably secondary to its monetary value.

In the case of the indestructible unstealable glaive, those traits are not exactly valuable to the character (at most, they would be an Accessory Perk). Now, it is possible that someone could brace a door with their glaive and run away, but I would count that as giving away the gadget, so they would lose it to their enemies. It might become an interesting curiousity, but its powers would matter, not its odd properties.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Since a character could (relatively) easily sell the diamond for money, I would rule that they would need to include the diamond in their adventuring assets, requiring high levels of Wealth. For example, a TL8 character would need Multimillionaire 2 to justify putting $10 million in a single gem (it would represent 25% of their adventuring gear). Unless it gives Super Luck, the fact that it gives its owner strange powers is probably secondary to its monetary value.

Except if they won't sell it, and they don't have any normal elevated wealth, they really don't have increased Wealth. It's the reason why you can take Cannot Wear Armor on DR in supers games even if you technically are physically able to.

[AlexanderHowl]

Yes, but players are always tricky that way. CWA should really only apply to entities that cannot physiologically wear armor. A personal taboo would just be a Vow.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Yes, but players are always tricky that way. CWA should really only apply to entities that cannot physiologically wear armor. A personal taboo would just be a Vow.

I personally find that a completely unfair stance to take. If someone can wear armor, but never will, they functionally have Cannot Wear Armor. If someone has a valuable gem that they will never sell, they functionally do not have Wealth.

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Yes, but players are always tricky that way. CWA should really only apply to entities that cannot physiologically wear armor. A personal taboo would just be a Vow.

I hate the phrase "social contract" when it comes to gaming, but this is pretty clearly a case of a social contract situation. If your gaming group is the sort where there's a competitive atmosphere between the GM and the PCs, then sure, by all means, try to keep any exploits and loopholes in mind during character creation. I'm not sure how much luck you'll have, and it seems the sort of thing that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you say at the start "just so we're clear - this is a Cool Thing that cannot be sold for X reason" or "Cannot Wear Armor is not a challenge, it's about making the cost appropriate to what you're doing" the players will generally go along with it.

TLDR - Communication Is Key, and in GURPS you pay for the effects, not the name of the ability.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

I personally find that a completely unfair stance to take. If someone can wear armor, but never will, they functionally have Cannot Wear Armor. If someone has a valuable gem that they will never sell, they functionally do not have Wealth.

The following is my opinion. ;)

If your character is so dead-set against wearing armour that no situation whatsoever could get them to wear armour, then rename "Cannot Wear Armour" to "Will Not Wear Armour" and add [5] for the fact that someone could knock you unconscious, put armour on you, and probably force a Fright Check.

If your character is so dead-set against selling a valuable gem that no situation could get them to sell the gem, apply the Accessibility (only under absolute mind-control, forgery, or legal guardianship; one time) -80% limitation.

Edit: That is, if such a thing absolutely has to be spelled out in mechanical terms; and overall, I think "talonthehand" has a better answer in many cases. One case that remains, is when players are merely trying to nail down the exact mechanical effects of something. This does not require an adversarial relationship. :)

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Actually, it is technically unbreakable without extra cost if it does not have Breakable. An unbreakable helmet would still transmit force though and an unbreakable sword (or gun) would have no other unusual traits (they just cannot be damaged or destroyed). In addition, if a gadget does not have Can Be Stolen, it cannot be stolen. For example, you could have a magical sword that cannot be broken or stolen by paying for a 1 CP magical gadget (though the GM will likely make you buy the underlying item as Signature Gear in that case).

That is putting the cart before the horse. If you have a Gadget-based power and it resides in an unbreakable object, then it gets the modifier for Unbreakable. You cannot make something Unbreakable by simply accepting the modifier. If you attempted to add some small bonus to a sword and make it Unbreakable, then I guess it's an unbreakable gem in the sword, but the sword is very much breakable.

Either use a more durable piece of normal equipment, or buy DR with Limitations such that it applies only to the sword, or don't base the attack on a normal piece of equipment. If the sword is an unbreakable, powerful weapon, it should probably just be built all Power.