25% of Starting Points

Henchman99942 · 03-12-2018, 06:27 PM

I am running a low point level campaign. Assume the starting point value for the game to be 25 points. When you add allies or enemies to the game, the points value of those allies and enemies is skewed because their value is toed to the starting point value of the game. Shouldn't this modifier instead be based on the actual point value rather than the relative point value? Should we use 100 points as the base and calculate from this base?

whswhs · 03-12-2018, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henchman99942

I am running a low point level campaign. Assume the starting point value for the game to be 25 points. When you add allies or enemies to the game, the points value of those allies and enemies is skewed because their value is toed to the starting point value of the game. Shouldn't this modifier instead be based on the actual point value rather than the relative point value? Should we use 100 points as the base and calculate from this base?

You can do that if you choose, of course. But it's not what the rules say; it would be a house rule.

Dalzig · 03-12-2018, 06:40 PM

I feel like allowing allies that potentially have four or more times as many points as the PCs for cheap will vastly overshadow the PCs (Edit: I'm probably reading too much into "Should we use 100 points as a base..."). Allies should help out every once in a while instead of swooping in to the save the day by being overpowered. Unless that's exactly what you want.

For such a low point game, I'd be a little interested to know what kind of worthy allies or enemies the PCs have. You're just kind of an average person at that point. You're probably not important enough for anyone to care about you that much.

Anaraxes · 03-12-2018, 07:42 PM

The existing rule is there to cover a wide variety of cases. Some games will start at 300 or 500 or even 1000 points, where a 100-point Ally is just a target. Fixed point Allies won't scale to the common range of values, so the points for Allies is relative.

So, too, if the points didn't scale down. Notice the rule that limits Allies to 150% of the PCs points, with higher-point characters called Patrons instead. If an Ally has 100 points while the "PC" has 25, it's really going to be the Ally that's the PC, with the PC being his hireling. Or, if the GM insists on playing all the Allies rather than the players (they are, after all, NPCs), then the players just become spectators to the multiple GMPC action.

How do you see the game dynamics playing out if the Allies are so much more competent than the PCs, with much more story-affecting power, and so keep overshadowing the supposed main characters?

~~evileeyore~~ · 03-12-2018, 08:28 PM

I think everyone (except maybe whswhs) is ignoring the thread title.

I believe Henchman is lamenting that in order to take an Ally that's even worth having show up (thus being built on 25 points, a 5 point Ally at 100% of Character points) would be a significant percentage of a Character's starting points*, whereas having one they can afford would be a completely useless Ally (thus being built on 5 points or 25% of Character points).

* There is a vast difference in spending 5 points on a 25 point character versus a 100 point character.

I think for Henchman's purposes recalculating the Ally Advantage cost as a percentage of starting Character points, rather than as a flat rate might be of value. Might hold for high Character point games as well...

Henchman99942 · 03-12-2018, 08:30 PM

I agree that Allies should never be much greater in power than the PCs. If they ever reach that level, then they should be treated as Patrons instead.

Take the case of the 1000 point campaign. You can have a 250 point Ally that is always around for 4 points.

Take the case of the 150 point campaign. Your every present 225 point ally costs 40 points.

Now granted, the ally in the second example is far more valuable to the PC, but the cost of other Advantages, such as Combat Reflexes, remains constant. I feel that linking Ally cost to the campaign setting changes the relative value of Ally compared to other Advantages.

Varyon · 03-12-2018, 09:45 PM

If you want to scale the cost of Ally to the character's starting points, might as well skip the hassle of making things relative and just change Ally so every point you spend on it gets you an Ally worth n points. If we set the default scale to 100, every [1] in Ally gets you an ally with [25] (with cost later modified by Frequency of Appearance, as normal). The only place where relative power matters is when your Ally approaches or exceeds your own value - and that's only if you really want to completely match the current scheme (it's probably simpler to do [1] per [25] up to 100%, then [1] per [5] thereafter, ignoring the "double cost for the last 25%" of the current Ally system; alternatively, [1] per [20] up to 100%, [1] per [5] thereafter would also work pretty well).

Daigoro · 03-12-2018, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I believe Henchman is lamenting that in order to take an Ally that's even worth having show up (thus being built on 25 points, a 5 point Ally at 100% of Character points) would be a significant percentage of a Character's starting points*, whereas having one they can afford would be a completely useless Ally (thus being built on 5 points or 25% of Character points).

To be fair, the PC's are only 25 points. 25 CP characters can't buy Warp, Enhanced Time Sense or Quick Gadgeteer either. Having Allies who are very good is just also outside their point budget.

AlexanderHowl · 03-12-2018, 10:55 PM

25 points does not produce worthwhile characters in GURPS 4e unless you are playing a campaign involving children or fuzzy woodland creatures. In my games, I generally have 5 year old children at 25 points, 10 year old children at 50 points, and 15 year old children at 75 points (with adults gaining 5 points for every year above 15 years old, though most of that is related to work and hobby skills). Of course, the PCs usually start at 250 points, so my 'average' may be more competent than other people's average.

Celti · 03-12-2018, 10:55 PM

Uh... as I understood it, and as per “Allies in Play” on p. B37, the point value of associated NPCs does scale with your actual (and not starting) point total. The Ally advantage only says “starting point total” because it is speaking in terms of character creation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Basic Set: Characters, p. 37

As with Dependents (p. 131), the
GM will adjust your Ally’s abilities in
order to keep his point total a fixed
percentage of your own as you earn
points. This will keep his value as an
advantage constant. The GM decides
how the Ally evolves, although he
might ask you for your input.

03-12-2018, 06:27 PM	#1
Henchman99942 Join Date: Oct 2012	25% of Starting Points I am running a low point level campaign. Assume the starting point value for the game to be 25 points. When you add allies or enemies to the game, the points value of those allies and enemies is skewed because their value is toed to the starting point value of the game. Shouldn't this modifier instead be based on the actual point value rather than the relative point value? Should we use 100 points as the base and calculate from this base?

03-12-2018, 06:40 PM	#3
Dalzig Join Date: Apr 2010	Re: 25% of Starting Points I feel like allowing allies that potentially have four or more times as many points as the PCs for cheap will vastly overshadow the PCs (Edit: I'm probably reading too much into "Should we use 100 points as a base..."). Allies should help out every once in a while instead of swooping in to the save the day by being overpowered. Unless that's exactly what you want. For such a low point game, I'd be a little interested to know what kind of worthy allies or enemies the PCs have. You're just kind of an average person at that point. You're probably not important enough for anyone to care about you that much. Last edited by Dalzig; 03-12-2018 at 06:43 PM.

03-12-2018, 07:42 PM	#4
Anaraxes Join Date: Sep 2007	Re: 25% of Starting Points The existing rule is there to cover a wide variety of cases. Some games will start at 300 or 500 or even 1000 points, where a 100-point Ally is just a target. Fixed point Allies won't scale to the common range of values, so the points for Allies is relative. So, too, if the points didn't scale down. Notice the rule that limits Allies to 150% of the PCs points, with higher-point characters called Patrons instead. If an Ally has 100 points while the "PC" has 25, it's really going to be the Ally that's the PC, with the PC being his hireling. Or, if the GM insists on playing all the Allies rather than the players (they are, after all, NPCs), then the players just become spectators to the multiple GMPC action. How do you see the game dynamics playing out if the Allies are so much more competent than the PCs, with much more story-affecting power, and so keep overshadowing the supposed main characters?

03-12-2018, 08:28 PM	#5
~~evileeyore~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: 100 hurricane swamp	Re: 25% of Starting Points I think everyone (except maybe whswhs) is ignoring the thread title. I believe Henchman is lamenting that in order to take an Ally that's even worth having show up (thus being built on 25 points, a 5 point Ally at 100% of Character points) would be a significant percentage of a Character's starting points, whereas having one they can afford would be a completely useless Ally (thus being built on 5 points or 25% of Character points). There is a vast difference in spending 5 points on a 25 point character versus a 100 point character. I think for Henchman's purposes recalculating the Ally Advantage cost as a percentage of starting Character points, rather than as a flat rate might be of value. Might hold for high Character point games as well...

03-12-2018, 08:30 PM	#6
Henchman99942 Join Date: Oct 2012	Re: 25% of Starting Points I agree that Allies should never be much greater in power than the PCs. If they ever reach that level, then they should be treated as Patrons instead. Take the case of the 1000 point campaign. You can have a 250 point Ally that is always around for 4 points. Take the case of the 150 point campaign. Your every present 225 point ally costs 40 points. Now granted, the ally in the second example is far more valuable to the PC, but the cost of other Advantages, such as Combat Reflexes, remains constant. I feel that linking Ally cost to the campaign setting changes the relative value of Ally compared to other Advantages.

03-12-2018, 09:45 PM	#7
Varyon Join Date: Jun 2013	Re: 25% of Starting Points If you want to scale the cost of Ally to the character's starting points, might as well skip the hassle of making things relative and just change Ally so every point you spend on it gets you an Ally worth n points. If we set the default scale to 100, every [1] in Ally gets you an ally with [25] (with cost later modified by Frequency of Appearance, as normal). The only place where relative power matters is when your Ally approaches or exceeds your own value - and that's only if you really want to completely match the current scheme (it's probably simpler to do [1] per [25] up to 100%, then [1] per [5] thereafter, ignoring the "double cost for the last 25%" of the current Ally system; alternatively, [1] per [20] up to 100%, [1] per [5] thereafter would also work pretty well). __________________ GURPS Overhaul Last edited by Varyon; 03-12-2018 at 09:49 PM.

03-12-2018, 10:55 PM	#9
AlexanderHowl Join Date: Feb 2016	Re: 25% of Starting Points 25 points does not produce worthwhile characters in GURPS 4e unless you are playing a campaign involving children or fuzzy woodland creatures. In my games, I generally have 5 year old children at 25 points, 10 year old children at 50 points, and 15 year old children at 75 points (with adults gaining 5 points for every year above 15 years old, though most of that is related to work and hobby skills). Of course, the PCs usually start at 250 points, so my 'average' may be more competent than other people's average.