Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by trooper6

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

Another bone of contention.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

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

Generic and Universal surely must include games for players seeking verisimilitude.

[Figleaf23]

Here's a potentially interesting thought-experiment. Take a template from one of the books and say your allowed to add 2 points only to it, in anything including Perks. How often will a player choose two perks vs. anything else?

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Another bone of contention.

Recently I've been trying to modify/nerf/charge more for some underpriced traits such as Combat Reflexes, High Pain Threshold, Luck... it has been working very well, players are encouraged to create very different characters using different "paths to power".
And characters who chose different traits, are no longer condemned to be "inferior".

I am also charging *less* for some traits that are really badly written or badly priced, e.g. Speak with Plants, Chameleon, Silence,Clinging, Cultural Adaptability, Daredevil, Gunslinger, Pressure support, Walk on Liquid or Unaging (that is *totally ridicolous* at 15 points).
If somebody is interested I can share my "revised trait list" with the changed costs.

The more rules you change, the less it is "GURPS", of course...

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Lupo

...If somebody is interested I can share my "revised trait list" with the changed costs.

I'm interested.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Here's a potentially interesting thought-experiment. Take a template from one of the books and say your allowed to add 2 points only to it, in anything including Perks. How often will a player choose two perks vs. anything else?

Always!

Thank you, you made exactly my point, better than I was ever able to :)

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I'm interested.

I add a couple of comments in English and I'll send the file to you.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Lupo

If somebody is interested I can share my "revised trait list" with the changed costs.

How big is the list? If you're only changing several traits, maybe you could post it as a thread.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Lupo

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...

True.
Although he does have to be allowed to buy the perks.
if you don't use limitation on the number of perks available, don't complain that having many perk unbalance things :)
your archery scout need to have magery, training in a magic style that allow magical weapon bond, 25 cp not yet perk-claimed, 10 point in that magical style not yet fueling a perk, and 20 point in combat skill not yet assigned to a perk.(or 10 in a combat style)
as long as he he not maxed out on perk, yes, they are, usually, more effective.
If he did not had them at creation, your scout would need 25 cp worth of experience before buying the perks, 10 of them in his magical style and 20 in combat related skills. (lets assume 5 point goes in combat spells or skill covered by the style)
As for night vision, yes, it is much wiser to buy it first -for a fantasy scout with skill at dx+1-.

Originally Posted by Lupo

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".

Yes.
I think i was not clear before. Sorry about that.

Perk can be unbalanced.
-there is few campaign in wich weapon bond will not be more usefull than, say, resistance to (arsenic), or hyperspecialization(yellow taraxacum ikebana)
-there is few case when weapon bond will not be cheaper than +1 to skill.

Still, all cost 1 point and i don't personnaly see a need to change it.

And their native unbalance against non-perk is mostly balanced by
-restriction on perk purchase
(as the scout example above)
-availability, wich does varies from campaign to campaign.
(In a dungeon crawl, the fighter can be assumed to be welded to his large shield. With a backup one on the back.Not so in a more social campaign).

of course, it is not perfect. And i can very well understand the simulationist want for perfect accounting. I just are not enough of a simulationist (in rpg at least) to bother, personaly.

As for figleaf experiment:
perk were created to have nice, usefull bonus for 1 point.
If you have 1 point to spent, perk will be preferred, they are there for that.
Now, take a template and add 25 point to it. How many player will take 25 perks ?
(not even factoring perk limits)
Moreover, if the template were being rewritten today, post power-up 1 and 2, martial arts, high-tech and ..., i think there would be more perks in it.
The game have evolved.

celjabba

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

How big is the list? If you're only changing several traits, maybe you could post it as a thread.

That would require a complete translation. Moreover, I think that the vast majority of people here would be totally uninterested and probably bored by such a thread :)

Originally Posted by Celjabba

True.
Although he does have to be allowed to buy the perks.
if you don't use limitation on the number of perks available, don't complain that having many perk unbalance things :)

I DO use that limitation. Using unlimited Perks at 1 point each would be INSANE.
But, as I wrote, I do not LIKE that kind of limitation, because it's fuzzy, arbitrary and D&D-esque.

Moreover, I hope you will realize the fact that a limitation on how many Perks you can buy does NOT solve the "problem" that some perks are unbalanced. On the contrary, if some perks are clearly more powerful than others, and each character can buy only a few perks, then most character will try to buy those few overpowered Perks.

As for figleaf experiment:
perk were created to have nice, usefull bonus for 1 point.
If you have 1 point to spent, perk will be preferred, they are there for that.
Now, take a template and add 25 point to it. How many player will take 25 perks ?

That's not honest debating. How on earth could a player take 25 perks??

An interesting question would be: Take a template and add 25 points to it. How many players will take Weapon Bond and 3-5 other overpowered Perks with part of those 25 points?

Moreover, if the template were being rewritten today, post power-up 1 and 2, martial arts, high-tech and ..., i think there would be more perks in it.
The game have evolved.

Yes, in a direction I don't like at all. With most 4th edition supplements, the game has evolved away from realism, simplicity and playability.
I guess that cool powerz, extreme cinematic-ness, and tons of "crunch" is what people want - but personally I see little reason for using GURPS to play in cinematic, over-the-top genres.
There are lot of broken, silly rulesets that does that perfectly.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Lupo

That's not honest debating. How on earth could a player take 25 perks??

Well, c31 could afford it. And telkozep come close...
it is ridiculous, definitively.
But, in my mind, so is asking someone to spent 2 point on template created before massive perk books, and wondering why the 1 point plug are preferred to patch the one point hole... They exist for that, no wonder they are preferred for that...

On the rest,
Let us agree on disagree-ing :)

I see and understand what you mean, i cannot see how it is game destroying.

I think we all play different games, and this thread show it.
(my last gurps campaign(currently on hold) was a 10+ game realist 1936 spy campaign in deutschland and africa. Counting the wild pigs assault, there were about 4 fights. A player who would have loaded himself with combat perks would have been sorry for it.)
My last fantasy campaign was 3th edition, so ...
I am planning another one soon, if all my player chooses the sames perk, you will get a mail of apologies from me. Knowing my players, however, it is -very- unlikely.

celjabba