Perks, can we have too many?
 

Basic, Martial Arts, Power-Ups 2, Magical Styles, Psionic Powers... we have so many Perks it's starting to make me feel dizzy. What's worse, they're spread over several books.

Can we have too many? Are perks the GURPS version of prestige classes (something obscure and munchkiny that everyone wants)?

My players haven't sprung a bunch on me yet, actually they're simple players with clean characters, I'm the one who's likely to spring this on my GM. I'm not doing it a lot and already I'm getting the "are you sure you're not trying to pull one on me?" look.

This isn't criticism per se, if anything a variety of choices to pick from reduce the number of perks players try to invent outright. It's just something that's been nagging me and I wondered what the comunity thought...

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Too many options? Um, nope.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Heh, brutal and true. Good answer.

Still, it's a lot of special rules and rules exceptions to remember.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

It boils down to how many you want to integrate, I suppose. It's best if players know their PC concepts first, then see if there are any mechanical benefits based on that they want for sure.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Actually, I feel the need to point out that PU2 completely includes all of the perks from Basic and MA. So at the moment, you've got PU2 (all general perks for normal type folks), Magical Styles (all magical perks for wizards) and Psionic Powers (all psi perks for psychics). That's not a bad division, as far as "splatbook" publishing goes. Three books, and two of them are specifically for very optional character types.

QFT.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Actually I'm having trouble convincing most of my friends to play GURPS due to how many options there are. It's a case by case on the player types.

Just to say, there is a problem with having too many options. It might be minor... and rarely noticeable... but it's there.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

That's what templates are for... not to mention strict pre-game genre discussions with players.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Let them remember their sweet little exceptions. You worry about their disadvantages. I've found that to be a pretty good division of labor: A player is naturally going to try to remember what gives him a tactical edge, and you're the one who's going to get the most mileage out of his disads anyway.

(There are some exceptions to this rule: Noob dramatists are going to naturally fixate on all the kewl angst that their disads give them, even being disappointed if they turn out to be "free points," and they won't know all the details of their nitty gritty little powers. Still, the division is a good way for them to learn, and you should help players like that design their characters in broad, general ways, with things like Wild Card skills rather than Perks anyway)

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

I'd say that's a human error, not a software issue.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

There is a solution, but it isn't easy: templates and acceptable trait lists.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Or suggest they focus on the sweeping strokes of character creation, like stats, big advantages, big disadvantages, and wild card skills.

Someone with Scientist!, IQ 16, Mathematical Ability+2 and Absent-Minded is basically the same as someone with IQ 14, Per 15, Will 12, lightning calculator, Dabbler, Hyper-Specialized, Physics (Meson/Electron Interactions) 18, Astronomy 14, Geology 15 and Mathematics (Applied) 16 (just an example, don't crucify me on point totals). Both give you that kewl scientist feel, but one is much more suitable for a broadly defined scientist, and the other is better for someone who wants to be very specific about what his character is capable of doing.

Just because there are options that let you define each and every point doesn't mean you have to use them. That's WHY we have talents, wild card skills and very broad attributes. If your players are skeptical, make a few example characters for them. When they glance at their sheet and realize their extremely competent character has a mere 5-10 skills listed on his sheet, they'll start to change their tune.

(Same applies with stuff like Martial Arts. If you want to be a Sambo Practitioner, you don't NEED triangle choke-hold, iron-neck and neck snap. All you really need is Karate, Wrestling and Judo)

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

And, as I understand it, there may well be plans for Power-Ups X: Perks 2, and more, collecting perks from later books.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

If they're going to do more Power-Ups, I hope they cover the other two areas of proliferation; Talents and Wildcard skills. Those have been running amok almost as much as Perks - I've had to create cheat sheets to keep up with them.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

A character can have too many Perks, but not the system.

It's just a notation of 1 point effects, most of them are variations on another, reducing a specific penalty or giving a bonus under a specific circumstance.

So if you feel overwhelmed by the number of listed variants, try and remember it's not any different really than having just a couple of options, and adding a little color.

Accessory / Specific penalty reduction or bonus / Minor rules exemption

Cover the vast majority of perks, then your just coloring it in with the specialties, techniques, details that apply etc. There are exceptions of course, but Perks (like quirks) are part mini-crunch and big flavor for your character story (for the most part).

In my opinion, there will never be enough perks. And no matter how many are published, I hope there are twice as many custom ones not printed in any book in play than there are ones with page references.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Good point, and the ones on Magical Styles and Psionic Powers are a bit niche specific. Most players can live without them.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Actually, that's a GREAT idea. Inspite of my concerns, the one thing that has been great about all these perks are the tons of examples to work from. We definitely need more official Talents, and it'd be interesting to get a treatment of wildcard skills, although I don't find this that essential as they're pretty loosely built anyway.

I'd love to see a "Power-Ups 3: Talents" and I wouldn't mind "Power-Ups 4: Skills!".
Someone write it.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Okay this I hear allot. If Gaming is like a meal, and character creation is like cooking, then playing games with a few options you select like a multiple choice quiz is like ordering your food from a menu. Now GURPS has a whole kitchen at your disposal. Now you don't want to set someone loose whose never cooked before to fend for themselves entirely (templates are a decent cookbook though) they'll make a mess and once everyone starts eating they're gonna be ****** about all the stuff they didn't know how to make that their friends are eating...

The beauty of GURPS is that there are no barriers and you can play whatever you want! So you have to sit a new player down, and ask what they want and let em watch you cook for em

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

It's a cookbook! A Cookbook!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

But seriously, that's what the books are about. Templates can help, but they are rather chunky and intimidating to look at, lots of numbers and weird arcane names for the new player.

[OT] To Serve Man
 

That's something I never got... Why did the Kanamits leave the book anyway :?

<on topic> No... although talk of a sequel is too early IMO.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

The presentation could probably be made less intimidating by presenting them somewhat less compactly and separating out the choices from the fixed portions; the compact presentation makes sense to manage page count, but may not be the most accessible for use, especially by new players.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

If you toss the book at them and say "make a character!" sure. But if you make the character with them, you shouldn't have a problem. At least, I don't.

"ST is this, DX is that, IQ is this, blah blah. You get these advantages, and now you have to choose X points from this small, easy list. Still need some help? Well, for your concept, I rather like this advantage and that one. I see you're eying that one over there, well, we can do this and that, how about that?"

It's MUCH easier than sifting through the entire book, and it's no harder than making a D&D character, IMO.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Official options are good, because they empower players, in that the burden of explaining why a given option should not be allowed lies on the GM, rather than a player having to explain why a non-official option should be allowed.

The problem with Perks is that there are a whole lot of them. This causes organizational difficulties.

A big and continually expanded index of official (i.e. Kromm-sanctioned) Perks, sorted by category, with each Perk placed in multiple categories, would solve the problem, though.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

That's probably a good idea.

I'll always defend a player's freedom to start a character concept with a single high-cost Advantage, and then build on top of that, but if a player starts with a very low-cost trait, e.g. a Perk, and takes it from there, then there's a fair chance that said low-cost trait should be a high-cost trait.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

That's why templates were invented.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

There is also the issue of passive advantages.

I won't accept having to remind the GM that my character has Voice or Charisma, or Danger Sense, because there's a risk that doing so makes me look greedy (even though I'm only demanding to get what I've paid for). If he can't keep my character's capabilitistic individuality in mind without needing to be reminded, he's unfit.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Perhaps surprisingly, I disagree. Roleplaying gaming is a hobby for the intellectually gifted minority, so people who can't handle complex systems don't belong in it, but RPG designers can make their systems more accessible by organizing the information along sensible lines.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

More official and Kromm-sanctioned Talents would be good, but don't overlook more variants of Blessed. Everybody else already does.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Or, maybe he is a little busy running the villians, the NPCs, the world setting, the atmosphere, interpreting rules, familiars, aliens, robots, etc. and maybe, he might feel that it wouldn't be too much trouble for the player to keep track of a few aspects of his/her own character to take a little of the burden off him.

just a thought....

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

For forum's sake, I provide this link to a related discussion:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...ferating+perks

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Ah, I did have a nagging feeling the issue was brought up before. Damn, too late now.

Btw, I think a good "solution" would be something like the Skill Categories pdf, which groups skills into logical if overlapping (not a bad thing) categories.

Once enough of them are out there, I think that'd help remember all your options and help character creation.

Btw, I don't think "rpg is for an elite intellectual minority". We should move away from that stance, 4e does this well, it's streamlined in a way you can select how complex you want to make it.

I have made custom, modular templates to great sucess. They're basically 20 or 30-point packs that players can slap together to make a character. Big hit with my family who doesn't know GURPS and doesn't have the time to learn, but loves playing it all the same.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

I suppose that depends on the culture of the group and GM. I certainly don't mind when a player reminds me that they have Danger Sense. Though I will admit I often note down things like Danger Sense and Perception levels so I can roll them secretly without the player knowing.

Appearance and Voice tend to be easy to remember, as players tend to emphasize this in their descriptions.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

They give a few minor bonuses to add flavour. The most I've had on a character yet is my gunslinger and he's got, six, I think. Most of it has to do with enabling him to spin the guns and open doors without them going off... the biggest one is the off-hand weapon training one. But, if you do it right, they all become more or less one package after you've used them and begin to make sense.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

The group I play among would be paralyzed if we were held to this standard as GMs.

I think we see ourselves as engaging in a collaborative effort to make the game events feel true in relation to the input plot points -- ie. it doesn't matter who points out that Jimbob's Acute Hearing should give him a bonus, as long as afterword you don't end up asking 'Hey why didn't Jimbob hear that'. That last eventuality is a failure of both GM and players together IMO.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

I use a GM control sheet, and try to remember everything, but I don't mind the players reminding me that they have Danger Sense, acute hearing and what else. I'm a person, not a machine.
Most of the time I manage without the players needing to say anything.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

But... Then the GM might actually have some fun!

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

There's no GM fun in GM Vs. Player wars.... um roleplaying.

Re: Perks, can we have too many?
 

Edited for broader application and endorsement. :)