[DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

Part 1

Here's a new character I wrote up this afternoon. She's a professional adventurer, not performing any particular specific niche function but as a pragmatic generalist and master of none. I'm back from a hiatus that was for my mental health, and I don't know if I'll be as active as before but I'm keeping an eye on the GURPS happenings.

Shelly Cuthbert
Primary Attributes: ST 13 [30]; DX 12 [40]; IQ 14 [80]; HT 13 [30]

Secondary Characteristics: Dmg 1d/2d-1; BL 34 lbs.; HP 13; Will 12 [-10]; Per 12 [-10]; FP 13; Basic Speed 6.00 [-5]; Basic Move 6; SM 0

Advantages:
Absolute Direction [5]
Appearance (Attractive) [4]
Combat Reflexes [15]
Fit [5]
Luck (Luck Points, +0%) [15]
Sure-Footed (Uneven) [1]

Disadvantages:
Bad Sight (Nearsighted; Mitigator, Corrective Spectacles, -60%) [-10]
Code of Honor (Adventurer’s) [-15]

Quirks:
Aloof [-1]; Inquisitive [-1]; Guarded [-1]; Pedantic [-1]; Spacey [-1]

Skills:
Brawling-13 [2]
Broadsword-16 [16]
Carousing-14 [2]
Cartography-15 [4]
Climbing-12 [2]
Crossbow-16 [12]
Diplomacy-12 [1]
First Aid-14 [1]
Forced Entry-12 [1]
Gesture-14 [1]
Hiking-12 [1]
Knife-14 [4]
Knot-Tying-12 [1]
Navigation (Land)-16 [1]
Observation-12 [2]
Riding (Horse)-12 [2]
Scrounging-12 [1]
Search-12 [2]
Stealth-12 [2]
Streetwise-12 [2]
Survival (Plains)-15 [12]
Throwing-12 [2]
Urban Survival-12 [2]
Wrestling-13 [4]

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

Part 2

Designer’s Notes

The following is my rambling notes for my character’s design. Shelly Cuthbert is a “Built to Concept” character for a DF campaign, where (ideally) the GM permits the players to create personalized characters and then utilizes the worldbuilding hooks baked into said characters to create a setting that suits the party. Alternatively, I try to make such characters be as generically applicable as possible, using as many generically applicable fantasy tropes in the design of the characters. I left off the equipment list as it’s something I’m not yet interested in hemming and hawing over, but I will finalize that prior to play certainly (to be fair it can roughly be inferred from what traits she has on her sheet… like glasses!). If and when she sees play I’ll give her a proper background write-up once I know who the other PCs are and what kind of setting the GM is proposing for the characters to play in.

I’m proposing an interesting +0% modifier on Luck. Rather than limit usage to once per hour of real time play, the character has Luck Points that can be spent to use their Luck with. Each use of Luck requires spending a single Luck Point. A character with the 15 point level of Luck has a number of Luck Points equal to the number of real time hours the session is scheduled for; e.g. if the session is scheduled for 5 hours, the character has 5 Luck Points to spend during that session. Unspent Luck Points do not carry over to the next session, and the character begins each session with the full amount of Luck Points. If a session goes past the prior determined end time, by whatever means the new end time is decided the character should be given the appropriate amount of additional Luck Points; e.g. a session began at noon and was originally intended to end at 5 PM, but the group mutually decided they needed additional time for the session and changed the end time to 7 PM, giving the character(s) with Luck an additional 2 Luck Points to spend during that session. The main appeal to this modifier is to ensure the player with the character that has Luck isn’t perpetually staring at the clock to maximize their Luck trait, taking the stress off both the player and the GM regarding time management. I think it might be argued that it could be possibly abusive to have Luck be used in rapid succession since it’s not tied to time with this modifier, but I think it is a problem that works to a net +0% still. Players will have to manage their Luck Points intelligently as a valuable resource, if they use it up all at once they might find themselves wishing they saved a point or more for later. This modifier scales with the level of Luck, e.g. Extraordinary Luck would let you have a Luck Point for every 30 minutes scheduled for the session, etc. I think I prefer this handling of Luck over the RAW or even the Game Time modifier. As just previously stated the clock-watching aspect of RAW Luck is problematic in my opinion, and the Game Time modifier for Luck seems to invite interpersonal drama more than it is helpful (GM: *points finger* Munchkin! Player: How dare you accuse me of intent I don’t have, I thought you trusted me? You’re terrible! GM: No, I just don’t trust my players on principle and anything that could be abused even if it won’t be so it shouldn’t be permitted. Player: BS! You could leverage that argument against almost every trait! At some point you just must let go of your paranoia…. GM: Nonsense, for these reasons… (and so on)).

As a tangential discussion related to the last bit of the previous paragraph, I do see why I might be met with some pushback on these sorts of character design choices. Even though it’s the GM’s job to help shape characters to be appropriate for their campaign, to a greater extent it is the player’s responsibility to ensure their character is made fairly. GMs are not infallible, and things can slip past their scrutiny, they may not have total system mastery, or they may not have experience with character traits and how to appropriately police their usage, etc. Creating a balanced character for a particular point total is less of a science and more of an art it seems, as points are not necessarily indicative of balance as not all point expenditures are of equal relevance within any specific campaign. It’s tricky, but if the players and GM collaborate and above all else communicate their expectations effectively to each other this can be a hurdle that can be leaped without too much difficulty. I guess this is just a longwinded way of saying I designed this +0% in good faith and what is called a “Quality of Life Improvement” within the gaming community. It’s meant to avoid the stress factors of time management for players and GMs alike and to avoid opening the can of worms that is the Game Time modifier.

I felt spurred to make a well-rounded character, never mind niche invasion. Specialized characters are great that they excel in a particular niche, but if the character dies then the party is arguably crippled because the essential niche is no longer being performed? If everyone is a bit of a generalist, then there’s less risk of undesired party crippling from a highly specialized character being lost. Shelly is a generalist but she isn’t a proper Mary Sue in any sense… in realistic terms she’s like a Navy Seal professional but in DF terms she’s just very average, at least for the 250 point default.

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

"Code of Honor (Adventurer’s) [-15]" needs some explanation because "behaves like a rabid wolverine" does not immediately scream -15 points.

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

I purposely left this unexplained precisely so that someone could ask about it, rather than purposely unexplained for the sake of defining it however I want, when I want as you imply (if this isn't true, do say so)? I also previously had this as a trait on another character, but the explanation is buried in that thread and by no means do I expect people to just remember something like that if they're even following my threads to begin with. I think it's due to irrational anxiety that I left it out; If I explain everything there might not be anything left to discuss, which probably isn't true because I'd hope I left conversation hooks in my notes to be some social grease.... if nothing else, I was purposely opaque to trigger this sort of response actually, as I've become accustomed at this point to the casual callousness of the average forumite.

Anyways, CoH (Adventurer's) is a combination of CoH (Mercenary's), Sense of Duty (Adventuring companions), and Sense of Duty (Hirelings/People who adventure with you but are not Hirelings). It's pretty ubiquitous within the genre for their to be a "quest giver", the Merc CoH ensures your word is honorable and you'll do your best to fulfill your "quest". SoD (AC) needs no explaining I'm sure, but SoD (Hirelings/Non-Hirelings) means you look out not just for fellow PCs but for your Hirelings and people who just happen to be adventuring with you but are not being paid to work for you. SoD (Adventuring companions) is specifically for PCs and doesn't actually include looking after Hirelings/Non-Hireling NPC companions.

This serves a couple purposes:

1) It's a bundled package of three seperate traits rolled into one for the sake of tightening the amount of trait details you need to keep track of. It boils down to "Honor your word, look after your steadfast companions well, and your hirelings as well." Easy peasy.

2) Alternatively it could be framed as a anti-murderhoboery trait as you can't just shirk your responsibilities to chase something more lucrative immediately, nor can you just treat your Hirelings like disposable meat shield-pack mules.

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

It seems a lot better than regular Luck to me.

The main use of Luck, at least in my experience, is in avoiding critical failures, and other potential disasters, and those come along when they feel like it. This allows you to use all of your Luck in a short space of time, as a renewable resource, providing very strong disaster insurance. The in-play effect is likely to be more like "Influencing Success Rolls", p. B347, but that uses character points, which are lost when used.

I know people who play with per-session re-rolls in d20-based games, and it produces strong motivation for time-wasting towards the end of each session. With GURPS Luck, I mostly play without considering the time, and have been caught out several time with ten minutes to go before my Luck refreshed.
Yes . . . is she always able to pull her weight in a party? She's reasonable with a sword, but without her armour specified, we don't know how durable she is in a fight. She's decent with crossbow, and very useful at Survival and Cartography. OK, she'd be quite handy in the adventure we're on, mapping Wolfstack Wood in the Cold Shard Mountains.

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

I don't think your required to take all the disads and given your heavy investment in Per skills the lowered Per really hurts

Why not pull a point out of Observation, Search and Urban Survival and 8 out of Survival to buy off the lowered Per? And can put the one leftover somewhere

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

I would be inclined to think that the Code of Honor described is closer to -10 than -15 points. It strikes me as amounting, in practice, to a variant of the Soldier's CoH, with "take care of your adventuring companions and hirelngs" being equivalent to the Soldier's "look out for your buddies" and the "take care of the demands and interests of your employer" being close in practical effect to "fight and die for your [...] country [and] follow orders". Still, I don't think it's worth arguing too much over- if the GM insists on knocking it down to 10 points, you can simply throw in Sense of Duty: Adventuring Companions on top of it to get the points back.

The bigger question is whether he hasn't spread his abilities too thin for a standard Dungeon Fantasy campaign- his straightforward fighting power is only somewhat better than a Bard or a Cleric or even a Scholar, and he brings a lot less to the table elsewhere.

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

RNG is a balancing factor here, or so I'd like to think. The dice fall as they may, and the point is that it's a resource to be managed. If you blow all your Luck Points at once, you might not have any at a later time to prevent undesirable outcomes. I don't think this is any less presumptuous than assuming you can blow all your LP at once and somehow expect there to not be possible dangers in the future.

So, LP spent all at once BUT risking future problems OR LP spent all at once and NO risking future problems comes out to a net +0% here.

I think it could be argued that circumstances could potentially be manipulated by the player to favor the latter over the former which I see is where you're coming from (like the later mentioned of possible manipulative behavior, a perceptive GM would nip this issue sooner than later). This reminds me of some Kromm logic about Features potentially being valued as Perks. At best I think this might warrant a 1 point increase in cost, but I'm personally in favor of keeping it at 15 as there's a little too much subjectivity with the probability and it could be argued to be a non-issue with a savvy GM.

The bolded isn't a true statement as I'm certain I provided adequate clarification in my notes on this, although I will elaborate/restate this more clearly if I can. You never have any more uses of Luck with your Luck Points anymore than the amount of uses you would naturally have with unmodified Luck. It's only a "renewable resource" if you're purposely dragging the session on longer than it is scheduled for. I doubt this is a meaningful isssue, as I would hope the GM to be perceptive enough to sus out this kind of manipulative behavior.

For the sake of objectivity I think we should value Luck for it's full point cost with the assumption that you're maximizing your time management in regards to Luck usage rather than under utilizing your usage of time, as it just makes sense to value it for its max potential. Anything less than that and I think we might be flirting with the idea that Luck should be priced lower, which common sense would dictate to be a silly idea I'd think.

I think a common issue that unmodified Luck has with the contentious Game Time modifier is time. For reasons it could be argued as a positive aspect of Luck's game mechanics, and for reasons it could be argued as a negative aspect of the game mechanics of the trait, as evident by my stances and past history of it being brought up by others in past threads.

Oh, I'll get to the equipment loadout eventually. It's the part I dread the most about char gen as it's the most time consuming aspect of it for me. That and I'd be more comfortable finalizing it knowing what game she's going in, and who the rest of the party is, their loadouts, etc. I might post a tentative loadout later. With said loadout we can probably be a bit more confident in her capabilities certainly, as a lot of skills are only as useful as the tools you have at your disposal.

One of my complaints about the standard DF templates is they have an almost one-track mind towards combat effectiveness without nearly as much focus on broader utility for adventuring. Sure, at least someone needs to be the combat monster but not everyone needs to be.

Thanks! It always has irked me in the past with my old parties I've played in that mapping is always neglected. I have the suspicion that today's smartphones with their convenient mapping apps has made people take physical maps for granted. If I'm ever at a American shopping mall and everyone else I'm accompanying is bewildered about where to go, I'm the first to go straight to the nearest directory map (how does anyone just miss these?). You could wander around aimlessly (as some adventuring parties seem to do, poor GMs might as well be trying to herd house cats), or you could inform yourself of your environment and keep track of things. With maps, good ones!

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

My reasoning for the lowered Per while I was writing her up was that I think it's a bit silly to simultaneously become more intelligent, stronger willed, and perceptive by raising IQ. If there's ever a GURPS 4.5 put into print I'd hope they'd consider splitting them into their wholly separate attributes.

I suppose it would be more point efficient that way, but a key part of trying to keep balance with a generalist I believe is to not double down on raising key attributes too high in favor of having cheaper access to higher level skills. Per in particular is such good bang for your buck in DF, more so than Will (ymmv), as traps and other similarly perceivable threats are far more common than things like mind controlling magics or whatever (at least from my experience, but I guess that's dependent on the kind of campaign).

Maybe I'm going too ham with trying to balance her though. Probably better to aim low than to aim high? *shrug*

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

I don't think Per 14 is unbalanced, you can see it on several templates

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

We were hired to map the wood, so we're doing that. The players suspect it is a euphemism for something else, since the chap who hired us looked surprised when two of the characters were enthusiastic about cartography, but we have not had any clarification. Since mapping the wood involves going through the whole place, acre by acre, we are finding all the inhabitants that don't hide from us.

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

For some reason I thought that the RAW explicitly says that SoD (Adventuring companions) was for PCs only, but upon rereading it it appears to be vague on this. To be fair it could certainly be interpreted as just for PCs as I have. It also probably doesn't help that I personally have a inclination for emphasizing the importance of looking out for the party as whole regardless of how the members are affiliated with you... which should translate to the appropriate Disadvantage on the sheet. I tend to not care for playing as more unempathetic characters unless they're genuinely meant to be more of an anti-hero/villainous character.

Some sort of overlap could be argued for CoH (Soldier's) and SoD (Adventuring companions), but I believe it's been adequately discussed before in past threads what makes them distinct from each other.

So, a lot of this like you seem to have noticed is left up to semantics. Effectively CoH (roughly equivalent Soldier's) + SoD (Adventuring companions) for [-15] in total or CoH (Adventurer's) for [-15], not too much difference. I guess it'd be up to the GM to discern how the fine grain should be defined here.

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

Fair enough. At least from my perspective for balance you have to look at how things work as a whole. Dungeon fantasy games, from anecdotal experience, rewards characters who particularly emphasize DX and IQ (... although I guess that's true for a lot of GURPS games). IQ in particular seems to be the biggest payoff, as everyone benefits from being more intelligent, strong willed (mind control magics seem not very common but when it happens it really matters), and most importantly perceptiveness. Per is such a bang trait in DF that if I were the GM I'd specifically house rule it to be [10] per level. Environmental awareness and the ability to utilize that information from your perceptiveness through the associated skills is just so good.

Partly I don't want to raise Shelly's Per any higher as that's how I conceptualize her. You might associate lower Per more with someone with Bad Sight, but of course Per is more nuanced than just your quality of vision. I see her as someone who's enthusiastic about her pursuits and thusly intelligent as she is because of that (as many people are), but I don't see her as being equally perceptive as she is intelligent. It's a common enough trope within fiction for those even remotely nerdy in any sense of the stereotype for such characters to be smart but have a reduced sense of environmental awareness (unless they're the investigative type).

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

I don't think that this enhancement to Luck is worth 0%, for the simple reason that you could still use it like normal Luck (once per hour) but ALSO use it all bunched up (5 times in five minutes). Since it emulates the basic Luck advantage, already worth 15 points, anything over that would be worth more.

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

This has been on my mind for a bit, and I happened to recall some details from the Impulse Buys supplement where it mentions you can purchase "Impulse Points", or IP, that you can use to do things that normally would cost a Character Point to do (such as "Influencing Success Rolls" as johndallman mentioned).

From what I've gleaned from the passage on that, IP that replenishes to its max amount each session should cost at least [10] per IP. I can't imagine the typical session being any less shorter than 3 hours, so let's say we need just 3 IP. This is clearly Aspected as well, so about -20% to have this IP specifically for point-based Luck usage. That brings us to [8] per point, or [24] for a 3 "Luck Point (LP)" point pool.

With some Googlefu because my math skills stink, we can figure a percentage increase from 15 to 24 to figure the appropriate amount that a Luck Point modifier would be for the Luck trait. The percentage increase from 15 to 24 is 60%, so the modifier should be +60% probably.

To account for stingy GMs and pentaphilia, we can tack on another +5% for a +65% modifier instead to bring that to a handsome [25] for the LP-based basic Luck trait. A [10] increase in point cost sounds about right to me. I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to value at-will Luck higher than that as any higher and I might consider spending my points elsewhere besides on Luck. To be fair, Luck could be argued as meta-level probability manipulation (as some people are inclined to see it as, although I know it to be more nuanced than that) so 15 sort of already is a bit of a crock.

So how's all that crunchery look?

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

I think that this sort of an approach is likely to be more persuasive to a GM.

Would it be 3 LP per session, no matter how long the session, or 1 LP/expected hour as you had it before?

Re: [DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer
 

Hmmm.

The +65% is what it is assuming your average game session is no less than 3 hours in length. Anecdotally, I can't recall any session ever being less than that, but I also can't recall it being much longer either... if it had to go on a bit longer, 4 hours. 5 is pushing it. In the past with my groups, all young adults or older with responsibilities or other relationships to attend to besides our gaming buddies, we'd gather roughly around noon to begin playing and end or session in time for people to head home and have dinner with their SOs/families or for the late night job shift. So a min of 3 hrs and infrequent max of 4 hrs sounds right. The game session that goes on from the early hours of the day to the late hours of the night or longer is a extreme rarity, at least from my experience.

I think it's fine if it's 1 LP/hour for +65% assuming a consistently sane (ymmv of course?) length of sessions, and you're getting roughly ~3 LP a session with that assumption of "sane" session length. I think the minimum +5% added on to the base +60% for +65% is the minimum you'd want to charge for the potential for a extra ~1 LP once and a while.