Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

[Figleaf23]

Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

Do they invite over-use? Are they intruding on the realm of Techniques? Are they too underpriced/overpowered? Are they munchkinny? Do they lead to a patchwork rules-set rather than a system?

Any views?

[Not another shrubbery]

Perks can sure be overused, but as long as they are carefully designed to be comparable and compatible with existing, vetted ones, I don't have a problem with them. Imbuements are much more of an issue for me. Perhaps there's something polarizing about Power-Ups?

The real threat is from rhetorical questions *heh*

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

Do they invite over-use? Are they intruding on the realm of Techniques? Are they too underpriced/overpowered? Are they munchkinny? Do they lead to a patchwork rules-set rather than a system?

Any views?

Danger to GURPS?
1. No. As with all RPGS GMs reserve the right to say NO when needed. The only true dangers to gurps are lost dice and broken pencils :)

Do they invite overuse?
2. To the munchkins among us, everything is an opportunity for exploitation. If it makes you fell better put the Quirk Cap of 5 on them.

Underpriced/Overpowered? Munchkinny?
3. The boundaries of perks need to be watched vigillantly, but most of the perks and Ideas for perks seem fairly well balanced. At first glance I thought strongbow was overpowered, but then I remembered its only ONE type of weapon, a missle weapon, and you have to spend 9 more points to get the full effect.

Patchwork Rules?
4. THe devil is always in the Details. These are not patchwork rules because well designed perks simply fill in the gaps for charachter style and player type. Designed properly they will never be able to overtake or replace the Larger Ads and Skills.

Nymdok

[chris1982]

I really love perks just because they can bend the rules a little bit if it is not really a big power difference.

[Erik_Nielsen]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

Do they invite over-use? Are they intruding on the realm of Techniques? Are they too underpriced/overpowered? Are they munchkinny? Do they lead to a patchwork rules-set rather than a system?

Any views?

They're mostly just tools. As long as the GM remembers to enforce their usefulness as related to their point cost, they shouldn't be a problem. Of course, it helps if you limit them as per Perks in Martial Arts: 1 Perk per 10 points of underlying Style. Extrapolate that to, say per 10 points of Power that allows the Perk or, as Nymdok suggests, cap them at 5 for non-Power/Style-related Perks.

In general, the real purpose of Perks is to add flavor, to tweak the character design a bit without charging full price. With some GM guidance, this shouldn't be a problem.

What might be more useful to this discussion would be a list of Perks that you find abusive or excessive or munchkinny. Wotcha got?

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Do they invite over-use?

PU2: Perks suggests allowing 1 Perk for every 25 starting character points excluding racial Perks (see page 3). Limiting it to 5 (as a balance to Quirks) isn't a bad idea either if they bother you.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

PU2: Perks suggests allowing 1 Perk for every 25 starting character points excluding racial Perks (see page 3). Limiting it to 5 (as a balance to Quirks) isn't a bad idea either if they bother you.

Limiting to 5 per player character is a bad idea, because it doesn't scale with campaign power level.

A limited derived from starting PC power level, which could be 1 Perk per 25 CPs or something like that, is a vastly superior solution.


For a DF or Action campaign, each character class could get a list of exclusive Perks that no other character class may choose. Or there could be a little overlap, e.g. between the Holy Warrior class and the Priest class.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

No more than skills were for 3e. At some point we'll presumably be doing an Eradicate Which Perks thread for hypothetical 5e discussions analogous to old the Eradicate Which Skills thread. And sure they are intruding on Techniques. Is that a problem?. The real problem is more that GURPS was built skills first, then a mix of skills and advantages added piecemeal, then techniques, then perks added piecemeal, instead of all at once. This has left a number of legacy residues of stuff in less than ideal categories - Fast Draw is probably a technique, several required specializations with generous interdefaults are probably Skill Adaptation perks, Kicking probably ought to be a skill etc. These are sometimes mildly irritating, but hardly rise to the level of threats.

Do they lead to a patchwork rules-set rather than a system?

Sure do. This is probably an unavoidable feature of any game system than has continuing support involving new rules (i.e. the part that sells supplements most effectively) though. Post-Compedium GURPS does a better job of keeping them integrated than most, largely I suspect through the blessings of Kromm.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

Do they invite over-use? Are they intruding on the realm of Techniques? Are they too underpriced/overpowered? Are they munchkinny? Do they lead to a patchwork rules-set rather than a system?

Any views?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I can't find much to add...

IMHO many Perks should be nerfed (or made more costly, or removed completely) AND characters should be allowed to choose them freely.

Having overpowered Perks BUT limiting how many a character can buy (according to his "class" or style) is *very* D&D-esque.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Having overpowered Perks BUT limiting how many a character can buy (according to his "class" or style) is *very* D&D-esque.

True. Though nobody took me up on discussing *which ones* are overpowered last time. I think there are a dozen or so, but most of them are fine.