Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
<snipped>
How do you justify the growth in character of any trait that doesn't have an obvious physical connection, like muscle mass? How do you justify getting better at a mental skill, or getting better at understanding and getting along with people? Or even learning Combat Reflexes, in GURPS terms? (Isn't that all really just combat skills rather than an Advantage?)
There's not a hard, qualitative line between skills, Advantages, and Talents. Those are all meta constructs that exist only in the game rules.
<snipped>
Are you looking for specific, detailed suggestions to spark your own thoughts along those lines?
|
GURPS old school, as Maximara points out, discusses inborn traits that should NOT be allowed to be added via experience points after start of play, but leaves some escape clauses or wiggle room.
What is the difference between someone with Musical Talent 1 who spends decades to reach skill 20 and a Musician with Musical Talent 4 who spends a handful of years mastering their craft (skill 20)? It would appear there are some who would with ease, say "of course you can buy up Musical Talent 4 from Musical Talent 1!"
That to me makes no rational sense. If mere practice is enough to raise a "talent" from a lower level to a higher level, how is that different than a simple Music Talent 1 spending years of practice reaching the skill level instead of the Talent level? Either talent is some inborn trait that is not improvable, or it is an improvable stat.
Even GURPS 2nd and 3rd edition had this to say about allowing inborn traits to be improved - but said this very explicitely:
"The GM should provide a good rationale in his game world or challenge the player to come up with a good explanation why he should be allowed (for instance) to suddenly have better hearing."
Trade out hearing and replace it with Musical Talent. Trade out Hearing and make it Magery or improving magery from a lower level to a higher level. Getting a leveled "Law enforcement advantage" is the result of getting a promotion to a job that allows for greater law enforcement powers. It isn't an inborn trait to the person, it is a function of the job.
Now - even GURPS goes the route of explaining that you can't KILL an enemy and remove the disadvantage. It went on to explain that a player can pay the points for a CHANCE to remove the enemy via a game session or two, and finally put paid to the enemy if successful in the adventure.
In theory? Unfettered tossing of experience points could permit a player to tell his GM "Hey, I paid points for Social Status 3 when I started out as Social Status 0. Give me land and a title" You and I both know this isn't going to happen, no GM would permit that even though Social Status is itself, a construct, not an inborn trait. ;)
So - yes, I'm looking for ways to make it seem like a GOOD rationale for allowing something that I see as an inborn trait. I treat Magery 1 as much an inborn trait as Magery 2 is. If you don't start with Magery 2, you're stuck with what you had at the start of the campaign. The only in game rationale for modifying a character after start of play with inborn traits they didn't start with, was by Great Wish or Divine intervention.
Now, changing one's inborn trait for a greater version, but at risk of dying makes PERFECT sense in some ways, but that would be a world building decision - not a game mechanic decision. Practicing magic means what exactly? Casting spells? All practicing spells does, is improve the spell knowledge skill itself. Lifting weights is known to bullk up muscle mass and hence lifting strength and - lifting SKILL. Practicing archery with a long bow improves accuracy perhaps - but if you use the same draw weight of bow all year long, you will never actually be improving your ST to use heavier bows right?
Each of these "improvements" have rational real world explanations on how to improve "attributes".
So, which is it? Is magery an attribute? Is it a skill? Is it an innate ability? Being able to upgrade from 0 to 1 suggests it is an attribute. Not being able to do so treats each level as an inborn trait.
Putting this all into perspective?
GURPS 2e and 3e both required that attribute changes cost double AFTER start of play for the character. TO go from ST 11 to ST 12 cost 20 character points instead of 10. Going from IQ 13 to 14 cost 30 character points instead of 15. Getting BETTER after reaching your adult stage was progressively harder to achieve - something that GURPS 4e makes only too easy.
So, yes. I'm looking for the rationale as to how spending 10 points to raise magery 0 after start of play to magery 1 has an IN GAME explanation for how it occurs. Most answers thus far have been along the lines of "it is a game campaign decision" or "practice" or something similar. An Initiation ritual does make sense, and I can point to MAGICIAN by Raymond Feist as a literay example of it. Every other answer treats Magery as an attribute, not an inborn trait.
No harm, no foul - I was just hoping that someone could come up with a good rationale as to why improving an inborn trait to something higher was possible without resorting to "it isn't an inborn trait". I am surprised to see people treating talents as something that can be easily improved after character creation - but, it is the right of every GM to rule as they do to suit their campaign.
:)