House Rule: Fixing 'High' Attributes?

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That's avoiding the problem rather than fixing it.
Kind of like suggesting setting a campaign in the desert to avoid broken swimming rules.

Avoiding-rather-than-fixing is a widespread tradition among GURPS GMs.

[Anthony]

I'd recommend solving the problem by just changing the price of attributes, probably in a nonlinear manner. To be RAW-legal, just tack it on as an unusual background.

[Kalzazz]

I have seriously considered say this for DX/IQ based on 3e

11-13 10 per level
14-16 15 per level
17-18 20 per level
19+ 25 per level

GURPS in skills makes it cheaper to dabble some in a lot of skills than to specialize . . . . you can make a big jump from default to 1pt level in 4 skills for 4pts, but only 1 point jump in 1 skill for 4 points after it already has 4 points in it

So this way it would encourage some dabbling in DX or IQ even if it wasn't your focus! Much like 3e did

I might even do things like bring back the idea of '+1/+2 to Guns for having IQ 11/12' as an inducive for DX based people to dabble in IQ, and vice versa

If you want to really make it painful and unpleasant to get high stat levels, but want to encourage stat dabbling, I've considered

11 10
12 20
13 40
14 80
15 120 etc pattern for DX/IQ, to mimic the Skill cost pattern. But that seems like overkill

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I have seriously considered say this for DX/IQ based on 3e

11-13 10 per level
14-16 15 per level
17-18 20 per level
19+ 25 per level

GURPS in skills makes it cheaper to dabble some in a lot of skills than to specialize . . . . you can make a big jump from default to 1pt level in 4 skills for 4pts, but only 1 point jump in 1 skill for 4 points after it already has 4 points in it

So this way it would encourage some dabbling in DX or IQ even if it wasn't your focus! Much like 3e did

Ah, no. While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of increasing costs as attribute goes up—going from 11 to 12 isn't as valuable as going from 12 to 13—lowering the starting cost back to 10 is a bad idea. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. You will be encouraging more investment in attributes versus skills, not less.

The issue is points needed to raise an attribute rather than a skill. In 3e, we'd get situations where another level of DX was only 2 points higher than another level of Broadsword. While the lowered top cost for what used to be physical skills helps avoid that a bit, you're still in a situation where it's much more efficient to buy up attribute rather than one skill. Isn't that what we're trying to avoid?

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I might even do things like bring back the idea of '+1/+2 to Guns for having IQ 11/12' as an inducive for DX based people to dabble in IQ, and vice versa

What is so great about stat dabbling? (Plus the Guns bonus from IQ became irrelevant and redundant when physical skills topped out at 4 points instead of 8.)

If you want a good progression of attribute costs, double the 3e ones for DX and IQ. Like Anthony said, you can call the extra points an Unusual Background if compatibility with the rest of the system is your thing. While the 3e costs were low, they did follow an odds ratio-based increase schedule, so it was more-or-less right in relative utility of one level of DX to the next one.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Avoiding-rather-than-fixing is a widespread tradition among GURPS GMs.

That's because a fix can deprecate all your supplements. I really want to run GURPS Cabal, for example, but if I substitute another magic system for vanilla magic, then I have to throw half the templates out the window, because they're all built from the assumption of GURPS Magic. So it's better to sort of avoid the problems I have with GURPS Magic than to actually address them.

(You get similar problems when working in programming frameworks: Rather than fix the underlying problem and throwing out all the support the framework gives you, you need to sometimes work around the quirk while hoping that the framework designers find a way to fix it)