Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

[mlangsdorf]

SWT buys off an arbitrary restriction on large shields. Large shields were already unpopular because they weighed 25 lbs, which meant your character was slower. And the difference in combat ability between a Move 6 character in light armor with a small shield and a Move 4 character in medium armor and a large shield was already generally weighed in favor of the small shield.

All SWT is make large shield characters slightly more viable. It doesn't break the game. If there wasn't a completely arbitrary penalty on attacks with large shields, it wouldn't even be necessary.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

All SWT is make large shield characters slightly more viable. It doesn't break the game. If there wasn't a completely arbitrary penalty on attacks with large shields, it wouldn't even be necessary.

Then the rules are broken twice... once because they penalize Large Shield, and once because they give you a cheap trick to "make it right".

Note also that the Large Shield has been giving -2 to attacks since... I don't know, the eighties? And nobody "corrected" it in GURPS 3e or GURPS 4e until Martial Arts was published.

Again, I'd be ready to bet that if somebody had said "the Large Shield is too penalized, GURPS is wrong!" before Martial Arts was published, you would have said "no, it's perfectly sensible that the Large Shield gives -2 to attacks".

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by trooper6

But this isn't about one-ups. This is about crafting a character that fits a vision.

I think that's critical. Ultimately, GURPS is a role-playing game, and Perks are a way to help you made the character you want to play. Like most everything else in GURPS, they're subject to abuse if you're merely playing with the numbers to make the ultimate killer character.

The Unusual Training and Special Setup perks, for example, were included in GURPS Martial Arts for exactly this kind of situation. We wanted a way to allow small variations in training that didn't rise to the level of TBAM. We didn't want to totally re-write Karate just to allow Wing Chun stylists to initiate a throw off of a Karate-based parry...but the alternate was either do that, or say they can't do what you see them do. And so on with most of them. I'll agree you need a GM to think about the consequences and writers and playtesters need to consider the ramifications of new variations or usages in general. But that's part of the point...it's meant to be character-defining and flexible, not a prescriptive limit on builds.

Originally Posted by trooper6

And using them with the recommended limitations...I see no overpowered problems at all.

Same here. There are a few you could potentially do damage with. Most of them balance out well, and only allow "abuse" if you allow them in an unlimited fashion and take them to extremes. A few of them seem easier to abuse, some less, but no less than spells and stats and skills in general.

My main reservation with these threads is that I wonder if the complaints are based on in-play disasters. ("Ever since Shield Wall Training came along, everyone using Large Shields wins every single fight!") or just theoretical concerns ("Ever since I read SWT I knew it was a game-breaker.") I pin vastly more value on the first sort of concerns. That's why you won't see much point-by-point discussion of these by me. If it's a specific problem in your game, it's a specific problem and you need to fix it...if it's just a general worry that these might cause problems because the numbers don't crunch right, well, I'm less concerned. I need to see the actual problem result first before I get worried. The upsides of perks are too good compared to the downsides for me to throw them aside because of a theoretical problem.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Truth is, for some people if a Perk has been officially published in a GURPS book, then it HAS to be fairly balanced and priced. Publication grant an automatic legitimacy to Perks.

Having been in on the Martial Arts playtest, and seen the process in action, I can tell you that the author doesn't just doodle down some text and SJG blindly prints it.

We were crawling all OVER the perks because it was a new shiny thing and people wanted to pound on them.

ANd yes, there was a fair number of people who's reaction when just theorycrafting, like you, was to go "there's no way this must be worth only a point".

But, I remind you to go right back to the Basic set, where its DESCRIBED IN THE CORE RULES that a +2 under limited circumstances is worth one point.

It's axiomatic. It's one of the fundamental assumptions of 4e.

So lets examine how, for example, shield wall training is limited:

One skill only - doesn't affect defaults.
Not for parrying.
Not for feinting.
Not for resisting disarms.
Only when carrying a 25 lb large shield (and therefore getting a -2 to everything else and encumbrance, and requiring 10 seconds of preparation).

Playing in a combat heavy game, I can attest from actual play that those are some heavy limitations.

And regarding the "wasn't fixed until Martial Arts for 4e" thing - and your point is? Armor weights have been wrong since about Basic Set 1e, as far as I know, and yet they're only being addressed in Low Tech for 4e.

Just because something has been broken for a very very long time doesn't magically make it not broken.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Seriously, would you buy 3-6 Techniques to characterize your fighter's style?

Yeah. That's another strong reason for perks. Seriously, they provided a great tool for making different styles in GURPS Martial Arts, without running into the problem of "who would buy more than 1-2 of these?" The right perk here or there can make styles really stand out from one another, and even make stylists stand out from one another.

[RedMattis]

I love Perks in general, the idea, the err.. perks with them, but a few of them can get a bit too advantageous.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Then the rules are broken twice... once because they penalize Large Shield, and once because they give you a cheap trick to "make it right".

Note also that the Large Shield has been giving -2 to attacks since... I don't know, the eighties? And nobody "corrected" it in GURPS 3e or GURPS 4e until Martial Arts was published.

Again, I'd be ready to bet that if somebody had said "the Large Shield is too penalized, GURPS is wrong!" before Martial Arts was published, you would have said "no, it's perfectly sensible that the Large Shield gives -2 to attacks".

Gah, just treat it like Exotic Weapon Training (fighting with a large shield in the other hand).

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Lupo

The same is true of Broadsword skill, yet it still costs 4 points per level to increase...

Broadsword is 1 point for the first two levels, and only hits higher values beyond that, first of all. Second of all, if you're stripped of your weapons and you run after another sword, Weapon Bond won't help you. If someone disarms you and you go to draw a second sword (or grab a nearby one), it won't help you, and if you're weapon is broken, it's gone. All of those points still stand.

Actually, it forces you to have some kind of "favourite sword" if you don't want to feel like a chump.

"The lack of an advantage is a disadvantage!" eh? While true, it's hardly the way to make your point, especially given that most systems punish players who try to stick to their heirloom swords instead of ditching it whenever something better comes along. That's quite a reason to keep it, IMO, and a major limitation there.

I am not saying that Weapon Bond or Shield Wall Training will ruin any game.
I am simply saying that if you allow them, most if not all fighters will buy them because they are overpowered traits.

By "overpowered" you mean "obviously useful." They are not, in fact, the same thing.

Moreover, GURPS rules *always* assume the worst case scenario - e.g., they price traits assuming you will make good use of them.

No it doesn't. By your logic, Broadsword should cost 20 points per level because "Every warrior is only going to pick one weapon skill and max it out anyway. Clearly 4 points is far too cheap!"

You're picking the wrong price point and calling that your "worst case scenario."

Those circumstances are not highly limited. I can't believe you actually think that "when wielding your favourite weapon" or "when wielding your favourite kind of shield" or "when wielding the exotic weapon you really like to use" are highly limited circumstances *for a fighting skill*.


I don't feel the need to "strip" anybody of anything. I'd simply like that players had a balanced and fairly priced list of advantages, skills and perks to choose from.

The reason Weapon Bond and Nightvision are so cheap are precisely because there are many situations where they will not apply, or where you can lose them, and/or because they encourage certain kinds of beneficial play. They are balanced. I really can't fathom your vision of balance and I honestly confess I have no idea why you object to these traits. I can't see how eliminating them would make for a better game.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

The right perk here or there can make styles really stand out from one another, and even make stylists stand out from one another.

"Strongbow" does not make stylists stand out... on the contrary, it makes all archers look the same, because *each and every* archer will have the Strongbow Perk. Or he won't, and he will be disadvantaged.

Overpowered perks do not help to distinguish fighters. Balanced perks would do...

Originally Posted by Mailanka

The reason Weapon Bond and Nightvision are so cheap are precisely because there are many situations where they will not apply, or where you can lose them, and/or because they encourage certain kinds of beneficial play. They are balanced. I really can't fathom your vision of balance and I honestly confess I have no idea why you object to these traits. I can't see how eliminating them would make for a better game.

You consistently misread what I write.
I never suggested those traits should be eliminated, I just said they should cost 2 points instead of 1.
Many PCs would buy them anyway, but they will not be "mandatory".
E.g. "Night Vision" ideally should be a bargain only for characters who plan to have many fights in the dark / want to be good at fighting in the dark. For 2 points/level, this is the case.
For 1 point/level, Night Vision is such a good deal that each and every fighter is encouraged to buy 1 or 2 level of it.

This favors "similar" characters and discourage specialization and customization.

Originally Posted by Bruno

ANd yes, there was a fair number of people who's reaction when just theorycrafting, like you, was to go "there's no way this must be worth only a point".

Those people were right :)

The idea that all Perks presented in Martial Arts are equivalent is just plain silly.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Lupo

This favors "similar" characters and discourage specialization and customization.

In your experience, not in mine. In my experience PCs don't have that many Perk slots, and they don't all choose the same ones. So, in my experience, not everyone picks the same perks.

If you want to go through every perk and re-price them at your whim in your games, you are free to do so. Heck, you can get rid of whatever perks you don't like. In your game, you can do whatever you want to. I don't know what you want from us. Validation? That I can't give to you. And, I wouldn't play in your games, Moreover. I distrust GMs who feel the need to do that much needling to game systems that are well balanced already. Plus, your obsession with balance and the narrowly focused ways you define it makes me feel we wouldn't be compatible. I'd rather spend my time making exciting adventures for my players, or crafting a really interesting PC concept if I am a player than spending hours trying to reverse engineer perk prices.