Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

So, do you think Acute Vision is underpriced as well, then?

There is no comparison.
Night Vision offset combat penalties; Acute Vision does not.
That's why Night Vision is more "powerful" than Acute Vision.

Originally Posted by trooper6

Strangely, I have never been in or GM'd a game where anyone has every taken the advantage. Not once. Ever. In 25 years. So...it must not be so underpriced and imbalancing for all groups and play styles.

That probably means that the GM either forget to apply darkness penalties, or forbids players from taking Nightvision.

Originally Posted by RedMattis

Even if ST costed 2 points per level, chances are many groups wouldn't have much a problem since they still just buy the amount of ST they feel is suitable for their characters, not the amount they can to best abuse the trait.

No, this is false. Trait cost will influence how players build and especially how they improve their PC.

If ST costed 2 points per level, a player who wanted to emphasize DX could spend 60 points in it, and just 30 in ST... getting DX 13 and ST 25.

[Þorkell]

Should I mention it in this thread that before Martial Arts came out the game effects of the Strongbow Perk were part of the houserules in our gaming. Still is, Strongbow is free in our games.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Lupo

That probably means that the GM either forget to apply darkness penalties, or forbids players from taking Nightvision.

Or, that people sensibly tried to avoid doing stuff in the dark... Or, if they had to, they just dealt with the penalties as best they could.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by trooper6

It seems to me that "too small to make a huge impact" is part and parcel of the definition of a 1pt Quirk. You start upping the prices for the perks, and people don't take them. They are supposed to be neat little things. They are also limited by how many points you've spent on combat skills, which is one of their balancing factors.

Too small to make a huge impact has virtually nothing to do with whether it should be 1 point or 3.

I don't think the pricing of traits should be driven by trying to get people to take them.

As already mentioned on this thread, the use of arbitrary limits to prevent people from buying piles of a particular trait is (1) not in line with the ICWIC philosophy and (2) evidence that the trait is underpriced.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

As already mentioned on this thread, the use of arbitrary limits to prevent people from buying piles of a particular trait is (1) not in line with the ICWIC philosophy and (2) evidence that the trait is underpriced.

But GURPS doesn't completely follow the ICWIC philosophy...see for example Combat Reflexes.

Also, RAW Basic says +2 to skill in limited circumstances is completely copacetic.

And anyway, if you don't like it...you can house rule to your hearts content.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Lupo

There is no comparison.
Night Vision offset combat penalties; Acute Vision does not.

Whoops, so it doesn't. I got that confused.
Anyway, though, I heartily disagree that there's "no comparison". The comparison is simple - give Acute Vision a +50% Cosmic enhancement, "also offsets darkness penalties". Then, using the usual math for "Only Enhancement X" builds (Enhancement value -100% = limitation value), "Only cancels darkness penalties" becomes a -50% limitation on Acute Vision. Acute Vision costs 2 points/level, so with the limitation it's 1 point/level.

Originally Posted by Lupo

That probably means that the GM either forget to apply darkness penalties, or forbids players from taking Nightvision.

As I mentioned upthread, I'm currently running a campaign where darkness penalties are frequent, and I still have a couple characters with no levels in them at all.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Lupo

There is no comparison.
Night Vision offset combat penalties; Acute Vision does not.
That's why Night Vision is more "powerful" than Acute Vision.

Once again, combat is not everything in gurps.
if all you do is low tl dungeon crawling, combat advantage are, of course, more powerfull and essential.

Originally Posted by Lupo

That probably means that the GM either forget to apply darkness penalties, or forbids players from taking Nightvision.

In my last gurps campaign, with lots of darkness penalties encountered and applied, 2 player had night vision.
The airplane pilot with night flying experience, because i told him to take it (2 level)
The city cop, one level.
The businessman, the spy, the photographer : none of them had it, although it would have helped them, and i suggested it strongly at character creation. but they found better use for the cp or decided it did not fit their character.
The campaign before : 1 night vision character out of 6 player
the ranger. The trader-mage, the warrior mage, the priest, the knight, the other knight found better use for the cp or decided it did not fit their character.
Against, i used darkness penalties when appropriate, and i did not forbid night vision.

Originally Posted by Lupo

No, this is false. Trait cost will influence how players build and especially how they improve their PC.

If ST costed 2 points per level, a player who wanted to emphasize DX could spend 60 points in it, and just 30 in ST... getting DX 13 and ST 25.

(Assuming you allow st 25.)
Lots of player, given st=2pt and 30 free points, would still not buy a single level of st. Because they don't need it/it does not match their character.
However usefull that st would be for them and the party.
If you play with munchkin, lots of perks and 1 pt feature are and will be abusable/abused. Like everything else, actually.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Too small to make a huge impact has virtually nothing to do with whether it should be 1 point or 3.

Err. Yes it have. Rule of fun : if it add to gameplay and does not have a huge impact, why not lower the cost to promote the use.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I don't think the pricing of traits should be driven by trying to get people to take them.

It is more like making sure player can take 'essential' adventuring trait.
Gurps is a role playing game, not a perfect universe simulator.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

As already mentioned on this thread, the use of arbitrary limits to prevent people from buying piles of a particular trait is (1) not in line with the ICWIC philosophy and (2) evidence that the trait is underpriced.

Gurps does not follow ICWIC.
Underpriced under ICWIC does not mean underpriced in Gurps.
Arbitrary limit for gameplay balance does not mean low level should cost more.
see combat reflexes: a little defence is good for gameplay: CR is cheap. A lot of defense is bad for gameplay: enhanced defence are very expensive.

celjabba

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

But since Gurps doesnt have the half a point anymore, and even less the hundreth of a point, rounding up and down to one point is to be expected.
moreover, here is nothing that say that all 1 point advantage should have exactly the same level of gameplay effect, especially since it is a purely subjective scale... Imho.

So point costs do not mean anything... then why aren't they "random"? We could say that IQ costs 1d x 1d per level instead of 20, who cares? It's all subjective...

I can't believe I am actually having to defend the fact that balancing trait costs is important in a point-buy system. That's the very basic of game design...

Originally Posted by Þorkell

Should I mention it in this thread that before Martial Arts came out the game effects of the Strongbow Perk were part of the houserules in our gaming. Still is, Strongbow is free in our games.

This simply means that you increase the damage of all ranged weapons by +1. It says nothing about Strongbow "balance".

Would you allow a "further" level of Strongbow that gives archers +1 to damage for just 1 point?

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

Whoops, so it doesn't. I got that confused.
Anyway, though, I heartily disagree that there's "no comparison". The comparison is simple - give Acute Vision a +50% Cosmic enhancement, "also offsets darkness penalties". Then, using the usual math for "Only Enhancement X" builds (Enhancement value -100% = limitation value), "Only cancels darkness penalties" becomes a -50% limitation on Acute Vision. Acute Vision costs 2 points/level, so with the limitation it's 1 point/level.

I am sorry but your enhancement/limitation calculation looks just like justificatory nonsense to me.

The +50% Cosmic enhancement, "also offsets darkness penalties", makes no sense for Acute Vision. Acute Vision does NOT offset penalties, it just increase your Per value for Sight rolls. It has nothing to do with Night Vision +X, that gives you +X on most rolls (fighting, driving, tracking, whatever) when darkness level is X or worse.

Applying an enhancement (even "Cosmic") to turn one into the other is like buying Charisma with a Cosmic Enhancement "grant a bonus to weapon damage". It might be formally correct under the crazy rules in Powers, but it means nothing.

Night Vision is NOT Acute Vision with a limitation "only to offset darkness penalties". It's a different thing, and arguably it's more powerful.

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Lots of player, given st=2pt and 30 free points, would still not buy a single level of st. Because they don't need it/it does not match their character.
However usefull that st would be for them and the party.
If you play with munchkin, lots of perks and 1 pt feature are and will be abusable/abused. Like everything else, actually.

I resent that implication.
Many (if not most) GURPS players have also a "gamist" perspective and want traits to be balanced; they want to be able to "tactically" plan, build and improve their characters choosing from a collection of equivalent, balanced traits.

Not all players who are conscious of balance issues and try to buy "effective" traits for their character concepts are munchkins.
E.g.: if ST costed 2 points per level, not all players would buy ST 20... but every player who tought his character could have DX 14 and ST 10, will rather say:
"I could buy DX 14 and ST 12 instead, it's only 4 points and it doesn't compromise at all my character concept... my 'deft thief' is now a 'deft and quite muscly' thief.

If you play with people that do not care at all about balance and effectiveness, I wonder why you bother to use a complex, over-detailed point system...
I can play GURPS (or any other game) without calculating point totals, nor bothering with balance; but if I DO lose my time doing point totals, I *want* those points to be a meaningful indicator of effectiveness.

Err. Yes it have. Rule of fun : if it add to gameplay and does not have a huge impact, why not lower the cost to promote the use.

???

Why should you do that?

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Lupo

So point costs do not mean anything... then why aren't they "random"? We could say that IQ costs 1d x 1d per level instead of 20, who cares? It's all subjective...

I can't believe I am actually having to defend the fact that balancing trait costs is important in a point-buy system. That's the very basic of game design...


I resent that implication.
Many (if not most) GURPS players have also a "gamist" perspective and want traits to be balanced; they want to be able to "tactically" plan, build and improve their characters choosing from a collection of equivalent, balanced traits.

If you play with people that do not care at all about balance and effectiveness, I wonder why you bother to use a complex, over-detailed point system...
I can play GURPS (or any other game) without calculating point totals, nor bothering with balance; but if I DO lose my time doing point totals, I *want* those points to be a meaningful indicator of effectiveness.

Mostly, because i do not pay much attention (if at all) to the point cost once play have begun.
I like gurps because
-it work well with few big glitches in the system.
-it is easy to explain and complicated enough to be tacticaly challenging
-you can play in many universe without switching rules.
-i like detailled tactical combat
-i dislike random character creation. a lot. I want my player, and myself when i play, to have character the way we want them to be, with respect for the general power level of the game. Cp help setting that power level, but i look at them as indication, not simulationist cost set in stone.
Granted, it is not the usual approach.

but my point above in the thread, and i realize i was probably unclear, is that, in my opinion, there is no way to have a perfectly accurate and balanced scale of usefullness that apply to everything, everyone, in every game settings.
So, nitpicking about wether this or that should cost 1 point more or less seems to me useless, since the scale is, somewhat, situation-dependent.
I don't mean all cost should be random, i mean that standardizing all 'small effect, up to a +2 to skill in limited circumstances' at 1 point, regardless of the fact that they may be worth from 0 to 3 points depending on circumstances, is easier and make sense.

If, by and large, it is more or less balanced, it is good enough for me, as i don't believe perfect balance is possible in this.
And i especially do believe that it is right to modify the cost of an advantage to promote ease of gameplay and variety in character built, even if it is wrong in a "gamist" perspective.

celjabba

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Mostly, because i do not pay much attention (if at all) to the point cost once play have begun.

Well, all players I've played with DID pay attention to character development.
So point cost is very important because cheaper traits can be acquired rapidly and easily, and more expensive traits force you to wait, possibly for several sessions.

E.g., let's say you are a "fantasy scout" with various skills at DX+1 or better. With 4 points you can either a single skill by 1 level (Bow, Riding, Tracking, Stealth, whatever) or buy Night Vision 2, Strongbow and Magical Weapon bond (bow).
The latter option will give you +1 to hit, +1 to damage and possibly +3 to hit when there is some darkness.
So point costs DO come into play and there is no need to be a "munchkin" to figure out what investment is better...

Originally Posted by Celjabba

I don't mean all cost should be random, i mean that standardizing all 'small effect, up to a +2 to skill in limited circumstances' at 1 point, regardless of the fact that they may be worth from 0 to 3 points depending on circumstances, is easier and make sense.

If, by and large, it is more or less balanced, it is good enough for me, as i don't believe perfect balance is possible in this.
And i especially do believe that it is right to modify the cost of an advantage to promote ease of gameplay and variety in character built, even if it is wrong in a "gamist" perspective.

Ok I totally see your position then.

You somewhat agree that Perks may be unbalanced, but it isn't that important for you; not enough important to justify rules-tinkering.

This is a very sensible position and quite different than saying "No, I DO care about Perk balance and I think Perks are in fact well-balanced".