[DF] Shelly Cuthbert, Professional Adventurer

[Tymathee]

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

250 points

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]

[Tymathee]

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.

[Balor Patch]

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

[Tymathee]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

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

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.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Tymathee

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. ... 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Kalzazz]

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

[ravenfish]

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.

[Tymathee]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

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.

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.

[Tymathee]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

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

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*

[Kalzazz]

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