Re: Skill Advancement
 

While I agree with you that this approach works given cooperative players, I find it ascetically unpleasing. I desire a system that can handle a variety of different types of players.

Re: Skill Advancement
 

Generally, if you're relying on a system to limit the chances a player who wants different things than you from their gaming has to ruin your fun, you've already failed.

Gamist systems, like chess or intricately balanced German board games, are indifferent to player motives or buy-in, because there aren't enough options to do anything other than what the game system assumes. So you can play chess or gamist board games with someone who has no shared interests with you, does not want to explore the same world or characters.

For roleplaying, I have not found the same to apply. A roleplaying system capable of preventing uncooperative players from doing things the GM doesn't want also prevents the GM and cooperative players from doing what they do want.

Like shackles and ball-gags, they enable a particular type of play, but restrain far too much to be sustainable through a relationship.

Re: Skill Advancement
 

I think you are misunderstanding my point. It’s not about player vs GM conflict. I just want rules that create the right motivations for players than are optimizers. Not necessarily min/maxers but people who will analyze the rules and at least tey and build a solid character. When you just ask them not to break the game they rightly might ask — what do you mean? They expect the game to prevent them from outright breaking things.

Re: Skill Advancement
 

Forgive me for being 9 pages late to the party!

Seriously, though, I think the decision to go with the base way of doing things is probably the best way to go, as it works for most types of games. That being said, GURPS is a game designed around using alternate rules. In fact there are a lot of rules in GURPS that are mutually exclusive and lots more that don't necessarily work together very well. Your "Harsh Realism" rules, while not contravening your "Bullet-Proof Nudity" rules probably don't belong in the same setting. But first take a look at the base rules and run with them. You will likely find what works - likely to be most - what doesn't and what you'd just prefer to change. Then look at the published alternate rules 'cause there's a good chance what you're trying to change someone else has already made.

As for ramping up skill costs - this is one of the few I haven't found. So what I've done is taken the original (1, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 totaling 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28) and made it (1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 totaling 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37) You can extrapolate from there. This necessitates a ramping up of attribute costs as otherwise at a certain level it becomes cheaper to just raise the attributes. What I did was 11, 12, 13 where normal cost 14, 15, 16 were double cost 17, 18, 19, were triple cost and 20 was X4. I don't believe anyone went beyond 15 and IIRC there was only one of those.

YMMV. Also, I tend to put talents as really part of the attributes. By this I mean even people with 10's across the board have individuals that are better at some things than others. Talents are basically a refinement of the base capabilities of a character before skills.

Just my (belated) 2c.

- Shane

Re: Skill Advancement
 

This is one thing that I will bring back to my 4e games to be blunt. The idea that just buying up stats after start of play ignores the fact that by a given point in time, the body is largely done improving, and the IQ of an individual rarely changes THAT much.

Sadly, GURPS now encourages Min/Max building, and worse yet, has encouraged Point cost inflation. Now it is not uncommon to build characters on 400 to 500 points - whereas, some have stuck to keeping the starting costs around 150 to 200. My cyberpunk campaigns are usually limited to around 225 character points. Why 225? 150 x 1.5 to match the idea that GURPS 4e's characters are now built upon 150 points instead of 100. Keeping starting points low makes players think HARD about what they want to have.

In all? We each do with GURPS what we want and life is good regardless of how you do it. This is why I tease people from time to time saying that I play GURPS 3.5 (at least within our group). GURPS 3e rules mixed in for some things, GURPS 4e for the rest.

Re: Skill Advancement
 

Shane,
I think something along these lines is worth studying. I would absolutely limit attribute increases whether I changed skills or not. I’ve be considering an attribute rule that was no more additions than your starting purchase on an attribute. So a 12 can go to 14 or a 13 can go to 16.

Re: Skill Advancement
 

I might go for a flat number in that case - everybody can improve somewhat. Someone who has a 10 might just not have done things to develop, yet. Maybe 2 or 3 points max above starting? Or maybe you can improve a minimum of 1 point even if you didn't put points there?

- Shane

Re: Skill Advancement
 

Yes! Missed that. +2 or double. I tend to think high talent people have higher upper limits.

Re: Skill Advancement
 

I kind of like this - you're essentially buying potential along with the attributes! What will most likely happen is you'll get starting characters with high attributes and low skills, so people with lots of potential but little experience. This makes them the wet behind the ears beginners who grow in time to become legends.

I like it, I might steal it. :)

-Shane

Re: Skill Advancement
 

Thanks! That was exactly what I was going for.

Re: Skill Advancement
 

I agree with your goals but not necessarily your methods.

As I've mentioned above, I would limit attribute increases. I don't see someone getting that better over time. My rule of thumb now is you can only increase your stat as much as you increased it in your initial buy or an additional 2 whichever is greater. So 10,11,12 get +2 and then 13 gets +3, 14 gets +4. This is potential as Shane mentioned.

After that you have to buy skills. I'm not sure I like 3e's exact approach but I do think there should be higher costs to increase a skill. Let's take chess for example. Going up 100 points in chess rating is a lot easier at 1200 than it is at 1500 and that is far far easier than it is at 2200. 100 points of chess rating is pretty darn close to +1 skill improvement though. If anything chess would be easier than real skills on the bell curve.

There are several types of skills
1. A skill where going above 20 is pretty useless. Fast Draw for example. You have up to -4 situational modifier which for me as GM is a pretty big situational modifier.

2. A skill that keeps getting better but may be augmented in other ways more effectively. Sword for example. It's almost always better to be better because of the ability to lower your own skill by 2 and your opponents by 1. This lets you cut down a lot of enemies quickly with a super high skill. It also lets you do called shots highly effectively.

3. Some skills improve and there really are no other better alternatives. Some spells for example. I suppose even they cap out at some really high number (who needs to teleport more than 50 million miles etc...). But they do benefit from a good bit of advancement beyond 20.