25% of Starting Points

[Lord Azagthoth]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

SHHHHHHHH! *Looks around with shifty eyes*

But seriously it's hard to put a price tag on Ally that will cover every single situation. This is why GURPS has GMs who are supposed to price advantages for their campaign instead of blindly RAW'ing everything.

For example "I have an ally who is 100 points instead of my 200 points! He has disadvantages to always want to give me money then I gave him multimillionaire!"

"So basically you just shortcut the wealth rules to get money for much cheaper!"

GM has to always decide what the value of anything is. I have a player in my game who has an ally who is way more points than they are, yet it is not nearly as effective because all the advantages just ended up costly that don't tend to accomplish as much as the PC. So they are priced according to my desire.

Edit: In fact, if you're on these forums worried about the point cost, this is probably one of those cases where the GM should be arbitrating what is fair for the game. GURPS tries to fill all the gaps, but where there are some there is a GM.

The GM makes the Ally, not the player.

[hal]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Or fails to teach them.

But the thing is, there are no formal lessons in Sex Appeal, or Intimidation, or even Administration as part of the school curriculum. So applying the 200 hours = 1 point ratio doesn't work. It looks more like on-the-job learning, at 800 hours = 1 point. But then all the time you spend sitting in classrooms listening to the teacher is fairly irrelevant. It's more like "learning by immersion," the way GURPS has you gain Cultural Familiarity and allows you to learn a spoken language.

And even then, I don't think the average kid comes out of high school with points in ANY social skill. I think that gets them up to the default level in all those skills. Sure, some kids learn Streetwise, or Sex Appeal, or even Politics, but the ones without a special interest don't. At least, in a campaign I ran, I wouldn't have the average adult have one point each in all the Influence skills.

Wanna have some fun with logic and implications of the GURPS rules for children and adults?

Turn to page 20 of GURPS BASIC SET: CHARACTERS. On it, it states flat out, that you buy the attributes for children, at the level they will be when the character hits their adult phase. Thus, one who is destined to become a ST 12 character when they turn 15, will still have to pay 20 points for the privilege of being a ST 7.6 kid at age 5 instead of the more average ST of 6 at age 5.

Note that the kid's ST at age 5 is at 6, worth zero points, instead of worth -40 points.

But here is where the implication becomes interesting in my mind. People may or may not agree, but...

At age 15, the kid has all 100% of his adult attributes. Does this imply then, that any further education past what one gains at age 15, no longer goes into upgrading the character's IQ? At what point in time does a child actively gain "skills" versus "improved education?

Put another way?

Every 20 points in a given broad range of "things" that go into what determines an IQ in GURPS, raises ALL default skills by 1 level for IQ skills that can have defaults. Yet, 20 points in a mental average skill, raises the skill to IQ+5.

Are twenty 200 hour sessions in all mental skills really the equal of +1 IQ? Is 200 hours hours really sufficient to gain proficiency in a mental average skill to where skill is now measured at IQ-1?

I'm going to guess that the answer is no.

But then again, GURPS can't even sit down and reliably set a measure of "one for one" where something in real life means something in GURPS.

Is IQ the mental horsepower beneath the skull cap? Does it measure how much more quickly someone learns relative to someone else? Does it measure memory retention? Is it truly a measure of will power? (GURPS in my opinion, should have divorced Will power entirely from IQ). But in the end, we use it as a GAME system for abstractions.

So, by the absolute measure system of GURPS BASIC SET: CHARACTERS, 25 points measures what exactly? Even the rules for children do not price children's attributes at an absolute scale, but at their "Adult scale". Zero points for ST 6 at age 5 is not the same thing as zero points for ST 10 at age 15+ In that sense, not even GURPS is an absolute system for measuring advantages, attributes, etc. <shrug>

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

In terms of firepower to encounter level that's true.

However where ally can shine is in accessing traits that couldn't (or wouldn't) have fitted into the PC's build or concept.

They can but at that point you are no long speaking in terms of multiplying power. Assuming the GM is designing the character, (which they should because its their character) then while the player will have asked for, say, an ace pilot, or a rich and beautiful love interest, or a rat-sized spy, most of the points should be invested in making a complete character that happens to have the desired trait.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by hal

Turn to page 20 of GURPS BASIC SET: CHARACTERS. On it, it states flat out, that you buy the attributes for children, at the level they will be when the character hits their adult phase. Thus, one who is destined to become a ST 12 character when they turn 15, will still have to pay 20 points for the privilege of being a ST 7.6 kid at age 5 instead of the more average ST of 6 at age 5.

It says no such thing. "To create a believable child, decide what his attributes will be when he is full-grown, reduce them, and purchase the reduced values instead of the full values."

[AlexanderHowl]

And heroic children can be just as capable in GURPS, they have just matured early.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

It says no such thing. "To create a believable child, decide what his attributes will be when he is full-grown, reduce them, and purchase the reduced values instead of the full values."

You're right - my interpretation was a house rule rather than the rule.

The reason?

Aged 5, a perfectly average child with 10's across the board, ends up being worth a total of -170 points. Aged 10, said character is worth -70 points
Aged 15, said character is worth zero points. Mind you, this is just for attributes alone, nothing else.

That having been said? The GM administers the play of a child, and has to somehow, award a non-adventuring child 100 points to account for 5 year's growth? Then for the next five years, awards 70 points?

As GM, it was simpler to use the rule that children pay full points for their adult stats in advance, and then reduce the full adult values by the percentages to their child levels. As they age, their attribute reduction is not a function of character points, but simply of aging. Otherwise, how do you account for a non-adventuring child gaining 100 character points from age 5 to age 10? <shrug>

So, caught by my adherence to a house rule. ;) My bad.

[Bicorn]

Originally Posted by hal

Otherwise, how do you account for a non-adventuring child gaining 100 character points from age 5 to age 10? <shrug>

If they're not adventurers, why do you need to keep track of their point totals?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

If they're not adventurers, why do you need to keep track of their point totals?

And even if the GM wants or needs to keep track of point totals for NPCs, why assume that they ought to use the rules for Advancement designed for adventuring PCs?

Being dead is a Metatrait worth at least -300 points. No one has a conceptual problem with NPCs adding that Metatrait very quickly when appropriate, either due to violence, disease or aging. Why would biological processes that add points be any more of a conceptual problem?

It would be unbalancing for PCs if one character gained increased Attributes without paying for them when another didn't, just because he chose to play a younger character who gains points with aging. It isn't unbslancing for NPCs, because their point value is irrelevant except in connection with PC traits like Allies or Enemies.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

If they're not adventurers, why do you need to keep track of their point totals?

Because players can have characters who become parents. Because children can become player characters if enough campaign time passes. Sons of nobles can become squires. Twins born of player characters can be destined to be mages, etc.

In addition, npcs are essentially player characters run by the GM, especially if they have to be built and maintained as allies or enemies.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

It's always kind of fascinating when you start discussing game mechanics with someone and realize halfway through that their interpretation of the rules is so different from yours that it might as well be an entirely different game system.
This kind of thing is not limited to RPGs, of course. We tend to assume communication is a lot more unambiguous than it really is.

Oh yes.

Though I wonder if GURPS has this problem more than other RPGs precisely because it is so flexible and relies so much on GM interpretation? D&D gives you Challenge ratings and lots of pre-made monsters and all the powers are pre-made..and there isn't actually a lot of flexibility in making characters compared to GURPS. You make a character with limited options and all the options are optimized for combat efficiency. What you do as a GM is also pretty set up by the rules.

GURPS? It is wide open.

I am a more skills GM, with the expectations the skill levels for adventuring skills will be 14+. Playing with me is going to be very different than playing with a GM who is a fewer skills GM, with the expectations the skill levels for adventuring skills will be 10-12. Then entire experience will be different.

So...how do you make a pre-made adventure for GURPS when my GURPS and your GURPS are so fundamentally different?