Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-13-2019, 12:07 PM   #41
Celjabba
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Default Re: "Could be worse" advantage

Note : I suggested the negative % (-5%,-20%,-40%) with Multiplicative Modifiers in mind.

Playtesting may be needed for adequate limitation % using standart modifiers.
Celjabba is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2019, 05:20 PM   #42
evileeyore
 
evileeyore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 100 hurricane swamp
Default Re: "Could be worse" advantage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Brook View Post
If you are contending that they are merely paraphrases of the text, then I note that your paraphrases ignore the point that the advantage is set up to be under GM control which inherently avoids the necessity of defining parameters.
Being under Player control doesn't require parameters either. I'll grant however, if you can't trust your Players to paint within the lines of your genre, then sure, set some hard lines in stone.

Quote:
Also note that your second example there appears to make Serendipity more powerful than Luck which costs the same CP, which adds support to my concern that allowing it to be player-initiated would be unbalancing.
'Unbalancing'? Not even a little. Still under GM supervision.

Also, since Serendipity has never been taken in any game I've ever been in (aside from myself taking it) I give it my relaxed controls. It's clearly not overpowering, or my Players* would be all over it.

And if it becomes 'OP' then I put limits in.



* Note however, my Players are a lot like me, they really don't like "per session" and "per [REAL TIME UNIT]" abilities. So... they also don't tend to take Luck either, though because it has a clear usage, it does get taken (the higher the chance for combat, the greater the chance it's a "fifth buy" type item).

Quote:
Which is what I said -- all you've got to go on is 'feel'.
Unless you're giving something clear and hard lines, a static bonus or penalty, or specific uses, that's all you ever have.

Serendipity at its core is "this feels right". I see no reason to change that just because I put in the Player's hands to initiate usage.

Quote:
The OP is asking for and describing something where the player says so.
Which the GM then allows, disallows, or modifies. As per all things in the game.
__________________
Feel free to steal, borrow, fold, spindle, mutilate any rule, advantage, etc I come up with it.

Gurps Combat Club on RPoL. Come check it out, play in a tourney or two!
evileeyore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2019, 08:41 PM   #43
Hide
 
Hide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Default Re: "Could be worse" advantage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigoro View Post
Well, it still needs the Accessibility (Only in dire situations), probably around -20%, and it would still need the Alter Reality if it's retroactive.
That’s right, “alters reality” (+75%) in conjunction with Celjabba’s suggestion, would provide Doe with a chance of activating his advantage after he stepped over the IED he failed to notice. Accessibility “only in dire situations” (-20%) sounds about right.

So, the advantage would be around the 36 CP, if you consider something featuring serendipity (first level) with wishing, +100%; alters reality +75%; Nuisance Effect (bad consequence, no wounding), -20% and Accessibility (only in dire situations), -20%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
Being under Player control doesn't require parameters either (...) And if it becomes 'OP' then I put limits in.
It does, that's why we got rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
Serendipity at its core is "this feels right". I see no reason to change that just because I put in the Player's hands to initiate usage.
I don't see it this way. What RAW describe, is more likely a "paid chance" to make a suggestion to the GM, a suggestion which might change something within the events of the current game session in favor of the player.

With serendipity, the GM must eventually consider a player’s suggestion in order to move forward with the game-session. (Also, it may even give the GM a chance to justify “lenient outcomes” without necessarily fudging dice rolls or bad roleplaying choices).

The fact is, that the player and the GM will have to negotiate the serendipity during game-play. No one single handedly activates serendipity; serendipity comes in play when both sides agree it.

Sometimes, an agreement over a normal serendipity could involve bad consequences, sometimes it won’t. IMO, serendipity inherently (always) means it could have been worse otherwise; you could say that a situation always works better if you decide to activate serendipity.

This is why I don’t think a limited serendipity deserves a discount for a “nuisance effect” or a “bad consequence” without guidelines. If a serendipity is “limited” to bring bad consequences, then it should clearly state what the negative part will be, so it won’t stop the game session to have the player and the GM decide what would the bad outcome should be each time. In other words, said part is not going to be about “this feels right”, it is going to be set on stone, because it was explicitly built into the limited advantage.
__________________
- 画龍点睛。Hide。

Last edited by Hide; 10-14-2019 at 09:26 AM. Reason: Grammar.
Hide is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.