Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Lupo

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.

I don't think it's true that most GURPS players are gamist--you are gamist, but don't project onto everyone else...I think that GURPS has a wide variety of things in it, and it attracts a lot of different types. I'm not gamist and I'm very attracted to GURPS. I'm a method actor. When I first found GURPS in 1988, the thing that drew me to it was that there were no classes, that there were rules for Dependents, that social skills meant something. The first GURPS game I ran was low fantasy. The three players created a bar maid, a carnie, and a drug addicted broken down gladiator. Only the gladiator took combat reflexes. Not everyone who plays GURPS plays the way that you do. GURPS has a lot to offer for people who are interested in social interaction rather than combat. See for example the whswhs Transhuman Space game I was in where in three years real time we had two and a half combats. And we all progressed in ways that made sense for our characters rather than on what was the most point efficient.

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?

Not a fair set up. There is little to buy with two points besides Perks. But I'd have lots and lots of players who, rather than buying Perks, would buy another skill or up a technique.

Now, if we go for a more fair 5pts, very few of my players would go with Perks (first off, they may not have the perk allotments)...they'd go with Status, or Attractiveness, or Skills, or some other advantage. Lots of things really. You know something that matched the character concept. And if they went with a perk or two...it would be one that matched their character concept.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Another bone of contention.

That it may be a bone of contention among some sectors of the GURPS fan base, it isn't a bone of contention among the designers. So if you are going RAW, ICWIC is not the way GURPS works. Furthermore, simulation above everything else is also not the way GURPS works. Note this comment by Kromm in a post on decapitation:
(http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=15)

Originally Posted by Kromm

As for whether it's "inconsistent" for limbs to be removable but not heads . . . were GURPS a reality simulation, you might have a point. But the game isn't a reality simulation. Losing a body part that can be replaced with a prosthetic – and in some settings replaced with a prosthetic better than the original, or regenerated – is a bad outcome for the PC, but it leaves the PC in play. Losing a head is just fatal, and takes the PC out of play. These differ dramatically, and it was the needs of drama, not simulation, that led to the current rules.

Those who want decapitations are welcome to move the point at which automatic death occurs from -5×HP to -4×HP for neck blows, make cutting blows to the neck do ×3 injury instead of ×2, etc. But it's a bad idea to invent rules that do an obvious end run around HT.

You who want a different GURPS than what we've got may house rule. But we have a system that balances simulation, drama, action, balance, playability, and fun...and I think it does it brilliantly. I don't think GURPS is broken. There are only a couple things here and there that are a bit wonky, IMHO, but Perk costs are not one of them, nor is the price for Combat Reflexes.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Lupo

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...

As far as point costs go, though, I disagree here a bit. If everyone takes a certain trait (or no one does), that means that (for the "everyone takes it" case) the system has priced the trait too low, the GM uses the situation that the trait fixes far more often than the generic assumptions in the rules, or a bit of both. These things are not independent (in fact, they're spectacularly dependent) on the game style of the GM.

If one plays games with no combat, then Combat Reflexes at 15pts is a spectacular waste of points. If the game is "all combat all the time," it's a steal. Raising the cost until not every combat character takes it is a fine way to promote diversity for an individual GM who doesn't want all the characters to have the same set of "useful" traits.

Either that or the GM needs to make a "Campaign Survival Package" consisting of (for example), a few levels of Luck, Combat Reflexes, and some levels of Acute Senses or something, and give it to every character, and then encourage players to differentiate themselves from that starting point. Then, the player who approaches you and says "Hey...I don't want my guy to have CR...can I do that?" becomes the unique one.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Lupo

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

Well, at one point, I had "PerkMan!," but that was more an exercise in futility instead of actual chracter building.

Originally Posted by Lupo

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?

Well, in a 500-point supers game, when the party got 18 experience points, one player spent one point on one perk: Rule of 15. Needless to say, he's only had to make one fright check so far (I'll see about correcting that in the future). It seems more that you're arguing from a theoretical point of view instead of an experience point of view.

I think there are some perks that are more powerful than others (Rule of 17, Rule of 15, both are awesome), but I haven't seen any of them overbalance any play. Sure the Rule of 15 made fright checks in a different supers game a little less . . . um . . . frightening. And the character who had spent 2 points on Rule of 18 for one ability got significantly more use out of those points than the character who bought High-Heeled Heroine and High-Heeled Hurt. But, it didn't unbalance the game. Not even a little.

In all the games I play I have yet to see a perk "break" the campaign, or even be unbalancing on a level that reduces the fun of the session. More often than not, they're just neat little things that come up on occasion and the character gets a slight bonus for thinking ahead.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Lupo

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?

Well, first off. StrongBOW only applies to bows. So I don't increase the damage of all ranged weapons by +1. just bows and just for PCs and NPC who have the skill at DX+1 or more.

Second question. Why should we do that? Archers are already getting that for free in our games.

Besides as the Perk description says "You need a strong bow to see range and damage improvements; there’s no effect when shooting a bow of your ST or less." So if you lose your way cool, custom bow you don't get the benefits.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by trooper6

... Not a fair set up. There is little to buy with two points besides Perks. But I'd have lots and lots of players who, rather than buying Perks, would buy another skill or up a technique.

Of course there is little to buy with 2 points, but there's no point in trying to compare perks against any of the major advantages, it wouldn't tell you anything.

I'm glad to hear your players still like skills and techniques. My OP really is asking that. I wonder whether your experience is true for others.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Of course there is little to buy with 2 points, but there's no point in trying to compare perks against any of the major advantages, it wouldn't tell you anything.

I'm glad to hear your players still like skills and techniques. My OP really is asking that. I wonder whether your experience is true for others.

Really my players focus on skills more than anything. Considering the varied challenges I throw at them, and the number of times skill checks come up. And also I don't let them buy things that they haven't used in game, or they don't have an IC reason for buying. So for example. You can't just buy a perk, or a skill, or a technique, unless there is an in game justification. And generally, many of the perks are hard to justify post-character creation.

Also, my players...and the people I play with, tend to be method actory types. They don't focus on combat or min-maxing. And if they do, they find themselves ill equipped for the challenges that they face in a game I run. Shield Wall Training perk is not going to help you when the central dilemma is if you should betray King Connal and switch over to the rebel alliance side or not.

The challenges in my games tend to be challenges of character. Skills and advantages are far more useful than a perk or a technique.

Also, maybe you are a big combat monster with techniques and perks and skills. That's fine...but maybe you shouldn't have gotten into that duel with the Crown Prince...and maybe you shouldn't have beaten him so badly...because now there is a lot of fallout.

The kind of game you run makes a big difference. Plus, I enforce perk buying rules. But even then, my players aren't all that interested in Perks in general.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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

I feel as if there's some kind of fundamental problem when you try to relate CP costs and verisimilitude. Is there any non-metagame meaning to CP costs? Even the points/time training mechanic is noted as being based on game balance, not particularly on realistic learning.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Lupo

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

Modular Abilities, Cosmic Power, Mental and Physical, 25 points capacity [500] would be one way. Excessive, but I think it would have to circumvent any rules limiting number of Perks.

Of course it's hard to call this abusive when you paid 500 points for it, but I'd bet more limited versions (to allow you to say, pick any 3 Perks with some limitations to make them changable with modest effort) could start looking iffy. The best 3 perks for some situations might be "worth" a good chunk of the 15 or so points such a Modular Ability would cost, depending on the limitations chosen, and given you can reconfigure for any such combination if there's some warning....

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I feel as if there's some kind of fundamental problem when you try to relate CP costs and verisimilitude. Is there any non-metagame meaning to CP costs? Even the points/time training mechanic is noted as being based on game balance, not particularly on realistic learning.

Bear in mind that my comment there was a reaction specifically to the proposition that GURPS is a game and not a reality simulator.

I agree, the CP value are, taken invidually, arbitrary. But taken in comparison to eachother, the relativity forms a part of verisimilitude -- IRL, few people have reliable intution and for those who do it's very helpful; while for most people they will rarely ever discover if they are (slightly) Hard to Kill. The former ability is costly compared to the latter -- reflecting the RL experience of the two abilities' utility.