From GURPS's Wikipedia entry

[Anders]

In principle, a Game Master can balance the power of foes to the abilities of the player characters by comparing their relative point values.

Is this, strictly speaking, true?

[arconom]

You have to ask? That's the entire point of the system.


On a tangent, I'm looking for an equation or nine that will describe point costs as they relate to values set for the campaign. The values I'm looking at using are things like:

Average damage per second,
Average movement per second,

and other values that would be appropriate metrics to use as a basis for establishing a cost for things. I think that, once the metrics and equations are established, balancing things will become easier. Someone other than me must have had this idea already, so I'm hoping to steal that effort and maybe create some balance.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Is this, strictly speaking, true?

Not in any particularly useful way. As the parable of the 200 point accountant and the 20 point thug demonstrates, context is king.

[Refplace]

In principle? Sure but there are things the GM has to consider, such as where the points are spent.

[PseudoFenton]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Is this, strictly speaking, true?

If you only compare the costs appropriate to the challenges that said foes are going to engage in yes.

Ie, if your foe wants to personally kill you then compare combat ability. If however you foe wishes to upstage your political career then compare social skills and wealth. If your foes care only about crossing some finish line before you then compare mobility attributes.

Ultimately you can indeed compare cp costs of abilities between the player characters and their foes - you just have to be careful to only count the costs of the appropriate subset of those abilities relevant to the task at which your opposed. The worlds richest and most influential king will still die when the poorest beggar decides to stick a shiv in their throat when the opportunity presents itself, despite the massive cp difference between characters.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by PseudoFenton

If you only compare the costs appropriate to the challenges that said foes are going to engage in yes.

Ie, if your foe wants to personally kill you then compare combat ability. If however you foe wishes to upstage your political career then compare social skills and wealth. If your foes care only about crossing some finish line before you then compare mobility attributes.

Of course, you may have a bit of a problem there, because things don't really break out that cleanly...how much is IQ worth purely for combat? Or DX for that matter? Does it depend on the character's skill list?

Also, some things just don't go down cleanly. What about the vastly important and basically un-priced realm of gear? What about the 100 point character with Advantage-based DR 10 in a TL3 game?

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by arconom

You have to ask? That's the entire point of the system.

Not it's not. The purpose of character points is to regulate the acquisition of abilities according to their power to affect the game. This allows characters start out with even potential to make the game fair, and it prevents characters from dominating the game by controlling how much they can do.

There is no reason to calculate the character points of non-player characters, creatures, or things. Character points only describe the potential game-affecting ability of a character, not the actual ability to do so in any given situation.

This statement should be excised from the Wikipedia article.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Is this, strictly speaking, true?

The phrase "in principle" is important. If I were writing about a subject, and I used that phrase, I would be planning a second section that explained why what was possible in principle, or theoretically, or speculatively, could not be made to work in practice and/or was never actually done. That is, I tend to see it as a seeming affirmation that will turn into a denial. In this case, the "in practice" is that there are too many limitations on the usefulness of character points for balancing challenges to make it a productive strategy.

Whether the Wikipedia article is following that rhetorical strategy is something I haven't checked.

Bill Stoddard

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The phrase "in principle" is important. If I were writing about a subject, and I used that phrase, I would be planning a second section that explained why what was possible in principle, or theoretically, or speculatively, could not be made to work in practice and/or was never actually done. That is, I tend to see it as a seeming affirmation that will turn into a denial. In this case, the "in practice" is that there are too many limitations on the usefulness of character points for balancing challenges to make it a productive strategy.

Whether the Wikipedia article is following that rhetorical strategy is something I haven't checked.

Bill Stoddard

The sentence appears as its own paragraph, and subsequent portions of the article do not develop on it that I can see.

[smurf]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

Not in any particularly useful way. As the parable of the 200 point accountant and the 20 point thug demonstrates, context is king.

The thug won't stand a chance over financial issues with that accountant.

But together they could rule by accounting and brawn... GURPS Baliffs!