Rolls for players looking to fund a new major religion

[hal]

As a final thought regarding the rules in GURPS...

How does someone reach any given level of skill in GURPS, and what does it really mean?

If you read the information under "IMPROVEMENT THROUGH ADVENTURE" starting on page 290, you will see the guidelines on how a character improves over time through "experience points". What you won't find in there however, are limits to what "experience" can do. For instance, can a player who doesn't have experience (through adventuring) in Chemistry (for example), increase their Chemistry skill from a simple 14 to a skill 15? Yes. The GM could require the player to stipulate that the character is seeking a tutor. The GM then responds "Well, you need to find a tutor whose skill is at least 15, has teaching as a skill, and will charge you not only for his time in teaching you, but also for the books, and chemicals you need for your lab training so you understand your teacher's teachings." In other words, someone has to know MORE about what you're trying to learn, than you yourself know. If you can't find such a tutor, then you'd have to find textbooks that will teach you the knowledge that you lack, and any self-training you engage in, will require double the time to learn than had you had a tutor to do so. If you can't find a tutor or you can't find the requisite books, you can't improve your skill.

So, at what point, should the experience through game play, hit this same level of "you can't go up in experience level or skill level"? At what point, would a GM say "Although you just received 4 experience points in game play, and your character did use Chemistry in a dramatic fashion such that the story would not have progressed further had you not had the skill - but you can't put points into it because you've discovered all you can without engaging in research to uncover more of the mysteries of chemistry's unknown things"?

At what point does a GM say "It is unrealistic to expect that a skill can reach the next level without some research or invention of new knowledge"?

Where GM's draw the line isn't based on what is in the book. Take me for example. When players gain experience points after a game run, I try to keep it within the limits of 1 to 5 points per game session. In addition - experience points can only be spent on skills used during the game itself. Although, not part of the rules, I also stipulate, that no more than ONE experience point can be tagged for any given skill used per game session. This way, someone with a skill of 14, doesn't in the span of one game session, reach a skill of 15. As GM, I got burned once, by a player who saved his experience points until he reached 30 unspent points. Then he used it to upgrade some psionics capabilities along with psionic skills, and suddenly, became VERY powerful and to some extent, abusive (ie - few could defeat his powers he suddenly gained). Rules as written, what he did was legal. GM viewpoint wise, what he did violated the expectation that such experience would be slow and gradual. Net result? GM (that's me!) decided to place stricter rules in place on how experience points were to be awarded.

Now? If the players came into contact with an individual who would (per the GURPS rules) treat the player characters much as would be expected under the rules governing "Contacts" - the players were awarded the NPC as a contact free of charge (and not count against the 1-5 point limit awarded at the end of any given session).

So - allowing someone a super high skill, or super high advantages, may result in some game imbalance that either breaks the overall structure of the 3d6 bell curve functionality, or it causes problems in "Believability". Case in point? What happens if you take an advantage known as "Talent" but you don't take one talent, but you take two? What happens if - each talent has 6 skills that it addresses with a bonus, and one skill is present in both talents? Suppose you took a +4 talent in A, and a +4 Talent in B, and this one skill is present in both? Does it become a +8 bonus to skill, or does it remain (as the rules specify regarding talents) at a +4 despite the skill being listed in two talents? Oddly enough, that's a grey area that doesn't seem to be addressed in the rules.

So, the GM has to make a ruling on his own, as it wasn't covered in the rules book. +4 on any die roll can be a HEFTY increase in the success probabilities. A +8 can be even more so. It can raise a skill that normally would be a skill 12, to the height of a functional skill 20. That means, any attempt that would be penalized by a -10 penalty, still has a 50/50 chance of success.

So, take it for what this is worth - any time you have a campaign in which the point totals for characters go above a given level, the ability for players to abuse the game system's game mechanics become that much more likely.

In my games, I think the highest I've permitted players to start with, was 300 points (and that for a solo one on one campaign). Skill levels higher than 18 without being caused by Talent, is a major no-no. If a player wants to start with a skill 16+, he is required to take "Reputation" as it is highly unlikely such a character would NOT have developed his skill to expert levels without someone being a part of it, someone being the target of such skill use (ie, if you're an expert swordsman, you had to have beaten a few individuals in life, and those individuals likely TALKED to others, spreading your reputation). Players in my game tend to be of the mindset "Bang for buck". Get the most capability for the least points spent in character design. Consequently, some feel that having a reputation as an expert in some capability, seems like a waste of character points. Little do they realize, that reputations can enhance any intimidation rolls - despite one player trying to use intimidation during a game once, and having it fail. He subsequently decided Intimidation as a skill isn't worth the effort.

I have been gaming since 1978 with various diverse game systems. I've been using GURPS since it first came out as MAN-TO-MAN, and later became GURPS outright. The stories I could tell you would likely BORE you to death (*teasing grin*). But the experience I've amassed, using GURPS as my go to Gaming vehicle, is such that I can tell you what works and what doesn't work for me and my gaming crew. I can tell you what problems I've run into over the many years I've game mastered GURPS. Despite all that, I can tell you with absolute certainty, that my "Style" as GM isn't going to please everyone. Just as I can tell you, that some other GM styles would not be anything I'd enjoy.

So, take any advice from anyone who responds to your questions as well intentioned attempts to convey their thoughts, and know that no one is going to expect you to follow their advice one way or another. If you ask for help, there will usually be someone on these forums who would be happy to offer such help - largely, because it is their nature, and possibly because someone helped them at some point in time. My biggest gripe about learning of some of these people here at the forums is that...

*sob*

THEY LIVE SO FAR AWAY!

;)

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by DocRailgun

So, she's spending like 30 years trying to found a religion? How do you model "failing" to found a religion? When does the character know ICly when they can start the attempt again? Certainly one does not just not gain worshippers and say "well, back to the drawing board" one morning.

Well, it is possible to just not gain worshipers. People have spent years preaching on the streets without gaining a single proselyte.



More likely, you don't gain enough for your tastes, or you suffer some scandal or political breakdown that disillusions people and large portions of them leave. The classic response to such a failure is to move and start again. I'd like to think sincerity can be gauged depending on whether or not you continue to support the remnants of the old attempt.

Originally Posted by johndallman

Yes, because they know that she's a stage magician and are therefore alert to her trying to read them. The marvelous success of crowd-based Fortune-Telling works because it's vague enough to match somebody. Once she claims to be their Goddess, many of them will become extremely sceptical.

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Sorry but I need to disagree according to the own game rules. You would need Unfazeable or Indomitable for that, and I for sure won´t be freely granting everyone in the setting world "Indomitable (-100%/only against X character)". Otherwise, it´s just a penalty to the skill roll.

Please note that social skills have their limits. They don't override free will. And fortune telling is a very weak one to start with.



Intimidation is the closest you can get to overriding free will, and its not subtle about it. They don't WANT to do what you say, but they do it anyway out of fear.



Fast Talk is another one that gets pretty close. You can prevent them from winning an argument, or defending an idea as making sense. If they're very suspicious of you, they may be able to do nothing more than look bad, throw up their hands and watch those who AREN'T suspicious of you go along. I generally don't let fast talk last very long, and I generally require engagement between the fast talker and the subject.


Someone who doesn't trust you who you use diplomacy on can't find a better solution to the problem, but they won't like it, and you can't get them to do something they really don't want to do. Diplomacy is about finding solutions that work. You can't get them to do something they don't want for nothing in return.



Fortune Telling can confuse someone. They won't be able to deny that what you're saying is accurate, nor explain how you're doing it. You might even be able to draw blackmail secrets out of them. That doesn't mean they'll believe you have powers, and you need them to play along for the best effect.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by hal

As a final thought regarding the rules in GURPS...

How does someone reach any given level of skill in GURPS, and what does it really mean?

If you read the information under "IMPROVEMENT THROUGH ADVENTURE" starting on page 290, you will see the guidelines on how a character improves over time through "experience points". What you won't find in there however, are limits to what "experience" can do. For instance, can a player who doesn't have experience (through adventuring) in Chemistry (for example), increase their Chemistry skill from a simple 14 to a skill 15? Yes. The GM could require the player to stipulate that the character is seeking a tutor. The GM then responds "Well, you need to find a tutor whose skill is at least 15, has teaching as a skill, and will charge you not only for his time in teaching you, but also for the books, and chemicals you need for your lab training so you understand your teacher's teachings." In other words, someone has to know MORE about what you're trying to learn, than you yourself know. If you can't find such a tutor, then you'd have to find textbooks that will teach you the knowledge that you lack, and any self-training you engage in, will require double the time to learn than had you had a tutor to do so. If you can't find a tutor or you can't find the requisite books, you can't improve your skill.

So, at what point, should the experience through game play, hit this same level of "you can't go up in experience level or skill level"? At what point, would a GM say "Although you just received 4 experience points in game play, and your character did use Chemistry in a dramatic fashion such that the story would not have progressed further had you not had the skill - but you can't put points into it because you've discovered all you can without engaging in research to uncover more of the mysteries of chemistry's unknown things"?

At what point does a GM say "It is unrealistic to expect that a skill can reach the next level without some research or invention of new knowledge"?

Where GM's draw the line isn't based on what is in the book. Take me for example. When players gain experience points after a game run, I try to keep it within the limits of 1 to 5 points per game session. In addition - experience points can only be spent on skills used during the game itself. Although, not part of the rules, I also stipulate, that no more than ONE experience point can be tagged for any given skill used per game session. This way, someone with a skill of 14, doesn't in the span of one game session, reach a skill of 15. As GM, I got burned once, by a player who saved his experience points until he reached 30 unspent points. Then he used it to upgrade some psionics capabilities along with psionic skills, and suddenly, became VERY powerful and to some extent, abusive (ie - few could defeat his powers he suddenly gained). Rules as written, what he did was legal. GM viewpoint wise, what he did violated the expectation that such experience would be slow and gradual. Net result? GM (that's me!) decided to place stricter rules in place on how experience points were to be awarded.

Now? If the players came into contact with an individual who would (per the GURPS rules) treat the player characters much as would be expected under the rules governing "Contacts" - the players were awarded the NPC as a contact free of charge (and not count against the 1-5 point limit awarded at the end of any given session).

So - allowing someone a super high skill, or super high advantages, may result in some game imbalance that either breaks the overall structure of the 3d6 bell curve functionality, or it causes problems in "Believability". Case in point? What happens if you take an advantage known as "Talent" but you don't take one talent, but you take two? What happens if - each talent has 6 skills that it addresses with a bonus, and one skill is present in both talents? Suppose you took a +4 talent in A, and a +4 Talent in B, and this one skill is present in both? Does it become a +8 bonus to skill, or does it remain (as the rules specify regarding talents) at a +4 despite the skill being listed in two talents? Oddly enough, that's a grey area that doesn't seem to be addressed in the rules.

So, the GM has to make a ruling on his own, as it wasn't covered in the rules book. +4 on any die roll can be a HEFTY increase in the success probabilities. A +8 can be even more so. It can raise a skill that normally would be a skill 12, to the height of a functional skill 20. That means, any attempt that would be penalized by a -10 penalty, still has a 50/50 chance of success.

So, take it for what this is worth - any time you have a campaign in which the point totals for characters go above a given level, the ability for players to abuse the game system's game mechanics become that much more likely.

In my games, I think the highest I've permitted players to start with, was 300 points (and that for a solo one on one campaign). Skill levels higher than 18 without being caused by Talent, is a major no-no. If a player wants to start with a skill 16+, he is required to take "Reputation" as it is highly unlikely such a character would NOT have developed his skill to expert levels without someone being a part of it, someone being the target of such skill use (ie, if you're an expert swordsman, you had to have beaten a few individuals in life, and those individuals likely TALKED to others, spreading your reputation). Players in my game tend to be of the mindset "Bang for buck". Get the most capability for the least points spent in character design. Consequently, some feel that having a reputation as an expert in some capability, seems like a waste of character points. Little do they realize, that reputations can enhance any intimidation rolls - despite one player trying to use intimidation during a game once, and having it fail. He subsequently decided Intimidation as a skill isn't worth the effort.

I have been gaming since 1978 with various diverse game systems. I've been using GURPS since it first came out as MAN-TO-MAN, and later became GURPS outright. The stories I could tell you would likely BORE you to death (*teasing grin*). But the experience I've amassed, using GURPS as my go to Gaming vehicle, is such that I can tell you what works and what doesn't work for me and my gaming crew. I can tell you what problems I've run into over the many years I've game mastered GURPS. Despite all that, I can tell you with absolute certainty, that my "Style" as GM isn't going to please everyone. Just as I can tell you, that some other GM styles would not be anything I'd enjoy.

So, take any advice from anyone who responds to your questions as well intentioned attempts to convey their thoughts, and know that no one is going to expect you to follow their advice one way or another. If you ask for help, there will usually be someone on these forums who would be happy to offer such help - largely, because it is their nature, and possibly because someone helped them at some point in time. My biggest gripe about learning of some of these people here at the forums is that...

*sob*

THEY LIVE SO FAR AWAY!

;)

Hahaha, you´re so right! I bet I would pleasingly read to most of those stories, if you ever wanted to share them. About the stacking advantages question... well, it´s complicated, but right now I made the decision that most of them would not stack, not even Resistant (anything)+3 with HT+3. The base skill governing attributes are also limited to 15, so Talent 1 would stack with IQ 14, but not with IQ 15. And the Teaching institutions are limited to Base+5, for a Contact Skill of 21 (with a skill of 18 at the top, with a base of 13). *So a character with a top base of 15 could learn a skill up to level 20 from teaching institutions.

[AlexanderHowl]

In general, I feel that self-training begins at skill 16, as that will be the reasonable limit for a teacher. Above skill 16, people can make much more money using the skill than they can by teaching the skill. A skill above 16 allows for a Wealthy or higher income, which means that people with that level of skill will rarely bother to teach anyone.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

In general, I feel that self-training begins at skill 16, as that will be the reasonable limit for a teacher. Above skill 16, people can make much more money using the skill than they can by teaching the skill. A skill above 16 allows for a Wealthy or higher income, which means that people with that level of skill will rarely bother to teach anyone.

For hard knowledge I don´t look at the end skill value, but its relative value to the base governing attribute, including talents. So Bioengineering-20 could be Bioengineering [24]-20 (meaning +5) or Bioengineering [44]-20 (meaning +10). The self-training begins at +5 and is limited by a custom secondary stat known as Memory and affected by Eidetic Memory, which makes it possible for Memory to reach a maximum value of 20 (granting a maximum relative skill of +10). There is also a special first level version of Eidetic Memory which is trainable (unlocking the +5 relative skill maximum).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

It´s just an emoticon which indicates laughter. I found the inference of a thirty years lasting campaign and the "well, back to the drawing board" on the morning funny. This is another emoticon which indicates a friendly smile ":)". I regularly use them. If you was to turn ninety degrees the screen, the ":" and "x" would be the eyes, and the "D" and ")" would be the mouth.

I understand that principle, but that doesn't help me figure out what the facial expression is meant to be. I'm not very visual. It's basically so much work to try to think of what some facial expression is supposed to convey that I just ignore the whole issue.

[Extrarius]

Originally Posted by hal

[...]Why ask for rules for anything in the first place? Rules are structures to limit what can or can't happen.[...]

Structure is very important for forming plans. With a framework of rules, you can definite a starting point and a goal destination and search for a way to apply rules to get from one to the other.

I'd love to be able to, for example, instantaneously appear at work when I choose, but the rules of reality mean instead I have to use the framework and find a way to apply them to get to work. I own a car, it has fuel, it is nearby, the road network connects the place I live and the place I work, and there is a parking lot at my workplace, so using the rules I can predict things to some level of accuracy and plan on driving my car to work (and plan on making many decisions on the drive to avoid collisions and otherwise adapt to dynamic road conditions). I have to know a lot of rules to be able to identify relevant conditions and factors. Forget rules about proximity and suddenly the plan to drive my car to work seems valid even if my car is hundreds of miles away.

Without rules, there is no way to evaluate plans, and thus no way to form meaningful plans.