What do YOU want changed?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Rindis

I reserve the right to change my mind as I do more with the system, but the only thing I typically use templates for is racial packages.

It *is* one of the major complaints from GURPS newbies (designing a character is too complex), and nicely done in Dungeon Fantasy 1. The problem is that it takes at least half a page to do a good template, so even the 10 concepts under character types (p.B12) add five pages, stick in the other dozen core sterotypes that aren't there, and expand for a range of TLs, and you are talking about a good sized chapter.

My first thought was to object to this. Then I realized, no, it is a horribly clunky system with lots of inherent problems. But, there needs to be something to note different types/levels of technology. So the question becomes, what do you replace it with?

Personally I favor names (e.g. TL:Modern Homeline), and suggestions to the GM on how to assign penalties between different technologies, but lots of people get very argumentative when I suggest trusting the GM to come up with reasonable penalties.

It is attempting to describe a potentially important concept, but does it poorly. A more 'soft' (i.e., non-rules shorthand/'crunchy') description of the society seems to be the only answer.

It's not so much the concept of classes, but the numbers and attempts to tie them to another single number Control Rating that bother me. I'd tolerate Almost Always Restricted, Usually Restricted, Usually licenced, and Usually freely available, probalby even if you called them 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Have a human-centric campaign? Use the normal scale, and the two-foot tall pixie can deal with the complications. Have a pixie-centric campaign? Shift to one foot hexes in combat (and other adjustments...) and the human character can deal with the complications.

It's tough to do in a system with integer scores for things though. For a computer game that could use real numbers and continuous random variables rather than dice with discrete numbers on them it would be a lot easier.

Yeah, puzzling through just what was supposed to be going on with top speed/basic speed took some thought. A clearer acknowledgment of the situation would had helped a lot.

I think a lot of it could be alieviated just with better names, particularly calling Basic Speed something else, moving it to its own section, and freeing up the word Speed for your top speed.

[Fred Brackin]

There are some problematic abilities that need cleaning up and haven't been mentioned so far.

Warp is bizarrely non-generic. I don't think I've ever seen any fictional treatment of teleportation abilities that matches the "default" rules.

A simple "Concentrate and make Roll x, then travel distance y instantaneously" ability would be more useful. You'd still modify it often but at least the default would be simple.

Invisibility has idiosyncratic rules as well. The "default" version is Always On and Doesn't Affect Machines. Huh?

Then there's some psi-type abilities that are No Range as base while others are naturally ranged.

Ally is fairly broken in the way that a powerful character gets a much more powerful ally than a lower pt character for the same amount of cp i.e. for 10 pts a 200pt character gets a 200 pt Ally on a 12 or less while a 400 pt character gets a 400 pt Ally. Differential results for equal prices ought to violate a basic principle.

Size. I'd like to make this a base Attribute with ST and HP being sub-attributes. This would clear up several situations in the rules where HP are being used as a stand-in for size. It would also let us base running and jumping speeds off of power-to-weight ratio rather than the current average of (probably) co-ordination and aerobic fitness (or possibly reflex speed and resistance to disease).

This would also help figure out how strong various creatures should be. The Animal ST values in campaigns are.....rather odd.

Most of my issues could be taken care of in a 4th revised if they were really willing to change some stuff. As it stands I can't really call 4e a polished system. It's quite rough in a number of places.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Desthro

Skills
More genericism, adding in multiple attributes for the same skill. (IQ for questions related to the skill, etc.) Also, the raw expense of the skill in question... Or the close-ended nature of skills, there's no real point to having 30 skill in swords... why?

Especially in combat there is NO ceiling on skills. There's a "not likely to need higher than this" area, but that's a very different thing.

Never mind things like "for delivering and resisting feints from that guy with Broadsword 25" and similar issues (any time there's a quick contest, having MORE than the other guy is more better). I'm talking:

Fighting at night, no moon, in a total blackout, with heavy cloudcover (-9) on a steep roof (-2) that's wet because it's raining (-2) while being buffeted by high winds (-2 or more - did I mention it's a hurricane, not a spring shower?) against an enemy that you can only defeat by stabbing in the eye through the slit in his helmet armor (-10).

Which gets you a net -25, so really you want at least a 41 to maximize your critical hit chances, and ideally a 51 or 61 so you can give this opponent a -5 or -10 on his defenses against your attack.

With a 30, you of course only succeed on a 5 or less - but that's because you're BADASS - normal swordsmen don't even have a chance.

Obviously this isn't an everyday situation. In everyday situations you use it for just feinting and then skewering "normal" people in the eye with a -4/-2 Deceptive Attack, or for defending against other skilled swordsmen.

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why would an Action point system make shortswords useful?

The idea is like already someone said like fallout, let's say, a shortsword would cost 8AP, while a broadsword would cost 9AP, so, some people would accept -1 damage for -1AP, many don't, also, this way the weapons speed will be more precise, small weapons would have the speed, big weapons would have the damage.

A good idea for this, is that if everyone have a maximum AP points, maybe the same as DX, other defenses also have cost of AP, you couldn't defend or use any AP while are at 0 or less, and everyone recover AP at the same time.
Example:
Albert(A) DX12 and a shortsword and Bernard DX11 and a broadsword are fighting.
A starts with 12AP, and B with 11AP, Albert starts Attacking(8AP), Bernard tries to parry(using, maybe 4 AP), and succeds, now A have 4, and B have 7.
B says that will wait until have 9AP, and A also waits, once A is with 6 and B with 9, B attacks, A then tries to parry(again, 4 AP), but fails to do that, B rolls damage, 3 cut, with goes to 4HP, now A is with 2AP, B with 0AP, but since A don't have High pain threshold, he lost AP equals to the damage, in the case, 4, and goes with -2AP.
B waits the oppportunity, waits one AP time, and with 1 AP, he tries something like an AoA, and attacks again, since A can't use his defenses.

[Rindis]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Personally I favor names (e.g. TL:Modern Homeline), and suggestions to the GM on how to assign penalties between different technologies, but lots of people get very argumentative when I suggest trusting the GM to come up with reasonable penalties.

Ugh. My problem would be the inherent lack of consistency that would be generated. (Of course, the problem is that there is an inherent lack of consistency in how technology is actually developed and used....)

Originally Posted by malloyd

It's not so much the concept of classes, but the numbers and attempts to tie them to another single number Control Rating that bother me. I'd tolerate Almost Always Restricted, Usually Restricted, Usually licenced, and Usually freely available, probalby even if you called them 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Okay, I can go for that.

Originally Posted by malloyd

It's tough to do in a system with integer scores for things though. For a computer game that could use real numbers and continuous random variables rather than dice with discrete numbers on them it would be a lot easier.

Yeah, I understand that it's a quick route to madness. :D In general, I'd say 'keep all as normal unless you expect to spend all your time with odd-sized creatures.' And give some guidelines on how to handle the more common cases. The main thing is that I feel that SM as an attribute/feature, with reduced ST cost as the only character creation effect is a bit of a cop-out.

Originally Posted by malloyd

I think a lot of it could be alieviated just with better names, particularly calling Basic Speed something else, moving it to its own section, and freeing up the word Speed for your top speed.

Yeah. I think my main though on realizing what was going on was 'well why didn't you just name them what they are?'

[Rotwang]

Originally Posted by martinl

Speaking of that, I'd like GURPS to go metric. Will not happen any time soon, but I can wish.

We can hope and dream...

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

The idea is like already someone said like fallout, let's say, a shortsword would cost 8AP, while a broadsword would cost 9AP, so, some people would accept -1 damage for -1AP, many don't, also, this way the weapons speed will be more precise, small weapons would have the speed, big weapons would have the damage.

Right I got that. I originally read those as D&D "Action Points" rather than Fallout "Action Points".

[Rotwang]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Isn't that the way it works now? Magery 0 is essentially a separate trait from the Power Talent portion of Magery.

Not really, Basic tries to lump them together into a single advantage that has different point costs for different levels (yuck! no other advantages do that). Thaumatology then requires a couple of pages of clarifications and an optional rule to straighten out the mess.

What we need is Magery being all about when/if you can cast. Then just have an entry under Talent that buffs castings.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Desthro

Skills
... Or the close-ended nature of skills, there's no real point to having 30 skill in swords... why?

As Bruno and Gold & Appel point out, theres always something to 'spend' extra combat skills on (Deceptive attack, environmental conditions etc).

Other skills its not always as clear and I run those a little more 'open ended' in my games so as to make sure that the players who do buy them up to exceptionally high levels will get use out of them.

Assigning environmental modifiers (lighting etc) is pretty easy and straightforward, what isnt always so clear is how to make the challenge in question itself more difficult and how that logically affects the rest of the world. I made a go of extending the difficulty of Locks (and the cost associated with them) beyond the +5/-5 parameters in the RAW here.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=71538

Even this isnt without an upper limit.

What would be intersting is if someone took a similar approach to all non combat skills and see how far we could extend the difficulty. Normally, in realistic games, the RAW modifiers work great. As we extend in to the more cinematic (DF, Action! where 250 point templates START with lvl 20 skills) we need a broader pallete to paint those challenges from.

Note as I say this that this is NOT an argument for a 5th edition, and is something that could be covered supplementally by say GURPS:Rock and a Hard Place - Exceptional Challenges for Exceptional Skill Levels.

Nymdok

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

What would be intersting is if someone took a similar approach to all non combat skills and see how far we could extend the difficulty.

The "Time Spent" p.346 rules mean you can benefit from Skill 25 for just about anything; Base skill 25, -9 penalty for doing it in 10% normal time leaves effective skill 16.