GURPS Power-Ups 9: Alternate Attributes

[Plane]

Would this include revisiting alternatives to FP-fueled magic, like T51's Essence or T79's Threshold?

[GWJ]

This. Is. Freakin'. AWESOME. Definitely the best supplement of 2019!

[whswhs]

I ran one GURPS campaign with tweaked attributes: one physical and three mental.

Physique covered all sorts of athletic activities and general fitness.
Alertness was perception and social awareness.
Intellect was basically IQ!
Will covered resistance to supernatural powers and social pressure.

For the secondary attributes, I did HP = Physique, FP = Will, and Basic Speed = (Physique + Alertness)/4.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Were I running a new fantasy campaign similar to the one that inspired GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, I might choose:

Attributes


Health [20/level]:

Perception [10/level]: The same attribute as in the standard rules, made independent and more expensive. That's because it reached silly levels as well. But it would affect Basic Speed (see below), and I might base a few more skills on it, like Diagnosis and Shadowing.

Power [20/level]: The biggest change! Will would go away and be replaced by this independent attribute. For most people, it would just do the stuff Will does . . . but by costing a lot more, I could keep the Rule of 16 (again, which I happen to like) and not make supernatural powers worthless. For clerics, wizards, etc., it would govern spells, True Faith, and the like.

Secondary Characteristics

Fatigue Points [2/level] = Health:

Magic Points [3/level] = Power: This would work more like Energy Reserve, and be exclusively for magic – all kinds of magic. The price wouldn't drop; magic is powerful.

Basic Speed [20/level] = (Dexterity + Perception)/4: I really like the idea of this formulation. It fits my view of how reflexes "should" work. And based on my campaign, Dodge and striking first are still worth 20 points/level, despite the next formula taking away Basic Move. Two notable "boss fights" ended up being anticlimactic because someone with high Basic Speed acted first and one-shotted the boss . . .

Basic Move [5/level] = (Dexterity + Health)/4: I find this makes more sense to me than a direct Speed/Move link.

I've never found players buying HT up to high levels, but if significant number of skills were added they might still buy it up at [20/level]

I like the Charisma [10/level] suggestion in Alternate Attributes, especially with the resistance ability and applying it to Enthrallment skills (those need a Power-Up) and think it would be a reasonably common purchase. I like the face of the party not also tending to be the smartest.

Perception I also like, and for similar reasons. I'm not a fan of decoupling it from IQ as is commonly house ruled due to point inflation, but as an optional attribute? Sure. Also sure for a Fifth Edition, especially for both with its Secondary characteristic change.
Power seems a bit pricey, especially for non casters. I'd make a defense only version like Increased Will for the rugged types and then be happy though.
On the other hand, except for the default magic system with so many spell skills most other systems are probably more in line with a 10 point Talent.
Otherwise I like the rest.

Originally Posted by Kromm

I wouldn't do the same thing in a modern-day spies game like my other recent campaign – the one that inspired GURPS Action. There I might go with:

Attributes

Physical

Strength [5/level]: While punching, stabbing, shooting big guns, and carrying heavy gear were a big deal, it did seem like a niche that suggested cheaper would be better.

Agility [15/level]: I'd split DX into this and the next item. This half would govern melee combat and anything involving the whole body, including Acrobatics, Jumping, and Stealth.

Coordination [15/level]: This part of DX would govern ranged combat, vehicle operation, and fine motor skills like Filch, Knot-Tying, and Sleight of Hand. Note that despite being cheaper than DX, this plus Agility together are more expensive than DX . . . and I'd definitely split skills evenly between them.

Health [15/level]: I found this too cheap, but not as bad as in the fantasy campaign, mostly because there were no supernatural powers to resist with HT.

Mental

Intelligence [15/level]: I'd still take away Will and Per, but I'd split off a social attribute, so this would be cheaper than in the fantasy campaign.

Charm [10/level]: This would be the other big change, after splitting DX. Social manipulation was just huge, and being good at it was too cheap at 5 points/level (like Charisma), especially when bundled with IQ.

Perception [10/level]: Independent, and exactly as in the fantasy campaign. The major prep work of the campaign would be splitting IQ-based skills more evenly among Intelligence, Charm, and Perception.

Will [5/level]: This would become independent but not change price – it still mattered a lot for resisting social manipulation, interrogation, brainwashing, etc., but it never got out of hand. I just didn't like it being tied to IQ.

Note: I would not add a Social realm! Charm and Will handle that well enough, and in that campaign, everybody was "reborn" as a "zeroed" secret agent, and so had no formal social status that would matter enough to venture into external social attributes.



Basic Speed [20/level] = (Coordination + Perception)/4: Again, I like this a lot. I'd choose Coordination, not Agility, because I like the idea of a link between reflexes and skills for shootists and wheelmen. I might just rename this Reflexes. Shooting first and dodging were even more important here, so I wouldn't lower the price despite the next call.

Basic Move [5/level] = (Agility + Health)/4: Again, this makes more sense . . . but Agility seems like the right part of DX to use here.

Power Level?

Again, unchanged. That campaign was high-powered, too, and I like the idea of forcing players to decide what's important to them![/INDENT]

Strength Agreed, in a higher tech campaign ST is less valuable, I like the TL progression in the book. Including for HP.

Overall as a generic attribute system I prefer the second one a lot more and would include a Power and Magic Points as options for supernatural campaigns.

For my own use I am creating two sets of Alternate Attributes
Substitutes: These act a lot like Talents and I dont expect to be too popular compared to just using the RAW but they do help with flavor and niche roles.
Examples: Charisma from the book which I named Presence to reduce confusion. Khaibit (Spirit flavored Per and social attribute)
Enabling/Changed: These are more likely to be used and often have a small UB activation or "Awakening" cost.Mostly these will be for supernatural or exotic traits. Examples: Chi Adept, Bloodline for my Vampires (sort of like MtA) so it has a role as a skill controller and an expendable resource. Holiness (from the book).

And a few others that are still just ideas, for now.
We already have some people who decouple Per and Will from IQ and I expect this book to prompt more variation. However, even though it might make it harder for groups to learn a specific attribute change and its effects the ideas and support this book offers should make that easier to balance and understand. I'd like to see some things from here show up in future supplements as optional rules or traits.
Holiness for example in a future priest magic book. Charisma/Charm/Presence in a future Social Engineering book, etc.

[Bruno]

Using the standard magic system, where each spell or stunt is its own skill, Power at 20/level is still a bargain. Particularly for spellcasters. It would also encourage non-magic-users to look seriously at Magic Resistance and Mind Shield, which I basically never see taken. Instead everyone just buys up Will, generally being robust high HT types anyways.

Splitting out the FP/MR into attributes is one I haven't tried, but otherwise this is pretty similar to what I've tried (and keep tinkering with) for DF games.

[bert]

I think this supplement is more or less groundbreaking for a toolkit system like GURPS. Very well done, I absolutely love it! It continues the discussions we had here on the board after the Pyramid article with Quintessence.

[GWJ]

I would LOVE something similar about advantages, disadvantages, and perhaps even skills :D It's like Thaumatology but not for magic :)

[Kromm]

Everything I say here will be prefaced with this: "It depends on the campaign."

Originally Posted by Refplace

I've never found players buying HT up to high levels, but if significant number of skills were added they might still buy it up at [20/level]

In the campaign that inspired my example, some warriors were wading into hordes of worthy foes (not just fodder), making six attacks, and receiving just as many, some from behind. Being beaten to -2×, -3×, and -4×HP with multiple major wounds over the space of a few turns was commonplace as a result. This was possible due to HT scores up in the 15-20 range, plus Daredevil and Luck for unfortunate failures. In effect, high HT became a superhuman ability like working magic or being in tune with spirits, but a whole lot cheaper than those others, which didn't feel fair.

Originally Posted by Refplace

Perception I also like, and for similar reasons. I'm not a fan of decoupling it from IQ as is commonly house ruled due to point inflation

I think "point inflation" is largely a myth. If people are forced to choose between being smart and perceptive, and having both means paying more, that isn't really inflation – that's sharper characterization. There's no good reason why spies, scouts, trackers, and outdoorsmen should be excellent with academic subjects and technology.

Looking at it another way, if the campaign is meant to have generalists who are good at everything, perhaps it's reasonable to say that's a high-powered campaign? In that case, splitting up "everything" among more, and more-costly, attributes forces everyone to be more honest about the power level.

Originally Posted by Refplace

Power seems a bit pricey, especially for non casters. I'd make a defense only version like Increased Will for the rugged types and then be happy though.

I can see both sides of this. I find the ease with which resisted abilities can be resisted a little troubling, but I like the idea of a cap. The Rule of 16 works for me, but reaching the point where it kicks in seems a little too easy. I have similar feelings about Fright Checks.

Also, if I were basing all forms of spellcasting on Power, I wouldn't want it to become a "dump stat" for non-casters. "I won't be casting, so I'll just take Power 8 and rack up 40 points" should have consequences. Being easy meat for fear and mind control is a pretty serious consequence.

On the flipside, don't overlook that everybody can cast spells. They're just skills based on Power. Sure, warriors with Power 10 won't be casting all the time, but one spell at 15-20 might be very tempting for self-buffing. Again in the campaign that inspired my example, magic-use was a matter of learning lost lore (which was a bunch of IQ/VH skills, and thus a huge investment), not of being talented in some special way. One of the campaign's casters was a big dummy of a barbarian who decided to mess around with runes.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I can see both sides of this. I find the ease with which resisted abilities can be resisted a little troubling, but I like the idea of a cap. The Rule of 16 works for me, but reaching the point where it kicks in seems a little too easy. I have similar feelings about Fright Checks.

One way to approach this that I've toyed with quite a bit is to have this sort of resistance be treated like a parry. So 3+(Governing Attribute)/2.

Will-20 thus does Fright Checks vs 13; Will 10 is only 8.

If spell resistance was the same way, a Wizard with Power-24 would have a magic resistance of 15; that's high but not breaking, and "Rule of 16" territory is pushed to Skill-28 and higher for things.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Everything I say here will be prefaced with this: "It depends on the campaign."

Of course. I was looking at it as more of a generic system. My personal preference is to keep as is but add optional traits (usually with a 5 point UB) for expanding the possibilities, at least if and until a new edition comes out.

Originally Posted by Kromm

I think "point inflation" is largely a myth. If people are forced to choose between being smart and perceptive, and having both means paying more, that isn't really inflation – that's sharper characterization. There's no good reason why spies, scouts, trackers, and outdoorsmen should be excellent with academic subjects and technology.

Agreed, 4 core attributes really make it easy to be a generalist. Talents and certain advantages help a lot are limited by the price of the core attributes. That is why I like your second example the best overall, it seems like the most generic and universally balanced.
But for House Rule territory, I prefer to add and subtract more than sweeping changes.

Originally Posted by Kromm

I can see both sides of this. The Rule of 16 works for me, but reaching the point where it kicks in seems a little too easy. I have similar feelings about Fright Checks.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

One way to approach this that I've toyed with quite a bit is to have this sort of resistance be treated like a parry. So 3+(Governing Attribute)/2.

Will-20 thus does Fright Checks vs 13; Will 10 is only 8.

If spell resistance was the same way, a Wizard with Power-24 would have a magic resistance of 15; that's high but not breaking, and "Rule of 16" territory is pushed to Skill-28 and higher for things.

Not a bad idea, I still like the idea of a lower cost resistance trait for those who can defend but not attack - such as Magic Resistance, and Will but those could be retained and simply added as if they were the stat.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Also, if I were basing all forms of spellcasting on Power, I wouldn't want it to become a "dump stat" for non-casters. "I won't be casting, so I'll just take Power 8 and rack up 40 points" should have consequences. Being easy meat for fear and mind control is a pretty serious consequence.

Personally I like the flavor of different forms of Power, though one form can be mitigated by charging a UB for each application learned or "awakened".
For my campaign I am using the rule of 5+ N/level to cover the innate but needs awakening concept and use the best of if 10+ and the worst of if reduced below 10 to prevent it being a dump stat.

Again, this shows how powerful GURPS is and how good this book is at exploring parts of it to tweak for individual setting and campaign concepts.