GURPS Power-Ups 10: Skill Trees

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I know it goes against the official line and probably the growing common understanding, but I believe this can run concurrent with normal skills and even Wildcards.

It does require one thing, though: an acceptance that points are the least important thing. If you are OK with that (and if you're not, that's also OK!), then you can look at it like having more than one magic system - there are different ways that PCs or NPCs can learn and develop, and since many NPCs are often (and in my view should be) built along the lines of "Soldier:Spec Ops:Sniper: 16" or similar (i.e. just generate a broad level of expectation as a guide), then Skill Trees could work particularly well, and points are even less important (IMO).

This means you can have both Clustered and Diversified skill sets as best suit the character concept and type. The price difference? It is what it is. I know this won't suit some people, but I also know there are many for whom exact or very close point parity isn't a factor or concern.

Oh, I agree and also think there are easy ways, with minimal changes, to plug Skill Trees into the current existing system, and it would therefore have similar costs. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to understand the implications of the new costs to setting up a campaign.

You say different magic systems. That's a perfect example and analogy with respect to what I'm trying to do for Skill Trees. I use both a skill-based magic system and a powers-based magic system, picking the one that best fits my desired campaign (I'm currently running 2 that use the skill-based approach, and 1 that uses the power-approach... and I've had campaign that had both simultaneously). They vary tremendously in point costs, and that's important to understand.

The powers-based system is much more expensive. For the amount of points its takes the power-based mage to learn 5 or 6 spells, a skill-based mage can learn 40 or 50 spells. That's not a problem, but it does affect play. If I want magic to be common and easy to get, I use the skill-based system. If I want magic to be rare, and people to only have a few spells, I use the powers based system. I don't have an issue with either system or their cost, but the choice I make affects the game play.

There are also considerations. Part of my choice is not only how many spells can they learn, but how it is balanced internally within the campaign to other character concepts and powers. If I have psionics, magic, and clerics, with wildly different points costs because they use different systems, that will influence which ones get picked. In a mixed powers games, in my experience, the players gravitate toward skill-based magic because they can do a lot more for fewer points (and buy Energy reserve to mitigate energy cost). It favors the mage. So while I might not have an issue with skill-based magic, I sometimes use powers-based magic because I want it to come out equivalent to the other powers to make them equally attractive, even though I'm not trying to limit magic use (the usual reason I use powers-based) in the campaign per se. So reasons of choice vary.

And, if for some reason I want a powers-based system, but to give them more points so they can have more spells "here's another +100 points", well, what will the non-mages do with those points? 100 points is +10 ST for the warrior, and +5 DX for the rogue. Do I want that in my game or not?

So really, when I debate skills-based magic vs power-based magic, it's not about the point cost of either system in off itself. It's about how that point cost affects me designing templates and assigning the starting character points in my campaign.

Bringing this back to normal skills vs Skill Tree, it's the same issue. So Skill Trees costs an additional (say for example) +100 points to have the same equivalent skills to match a starting template. Big deal in of itself.. but how does that change others things. What if those points are use in attributes instead of skills (to get better defaults)? What does +100 points do for a skill-based mage? What does it do if I'm using a powers-based system. What if they spend that all on anything other than the Skill Tree?

You also have to change how to watch for the min-maxers. I tend to say about 50 points in skills for new characters. In the current skill system, a min-maxer might go Favorite Skill +10 [40] and then spread the remaining 10 points in up to 10 additional skills that will however around -1, +0, +1. While a bit of a one-trick, this character has a least a half-dozen other skills, so is semi-rounded.

Now, if I got +100 to give them 150 points because I want to get the possibility of equivalent options using Skill Trees, well, you can max out a branch for [45]... so that optimized will go Favorite Skill 1 [45], Favorite Skill 2 [45] and Favorite skill 3 [45] for 135 points, and that leaves 15 points left over. and that's just enough to get you one more skill around +0... so you've gone from a half-dozen background skills to round out your character to just one.

[Funny side anecdote, as my players and I went over skill trees, one jokingly went for a Leaf of Target Attack: Head (for Axe) +15 [15], hitting the campaign max and no corresponding Trunk, Branch, or Twig... so he could hit someone in the head amazingly, but not do anything else, not even parry. It was meant as a joke as part of us testing it, but it shows what a min-maxer can do with the system.]

Granted, that's someone pushing the rules. I don't tend to have that in my games as my current crop of players are great, preferring rounded characters to optimized characters. But it is still something you need to be aware can happen. (I've had problem players in the past.)

Are any of the issues I wrote above horribly game-breaking and unsurmountable? Absolutely not. They are just potentially new/different issues you need to be aware of as a GM if you start using Skill Trees.

My playing around to quantify the difference in point costs is to better understand those issues. It's not because I don't like how much it Skill Trees costs in of itself.

As to my playing around and rule hacking to see if I can easily make Skill Trees match the old cost, it's not because I think the old cost is better. It's because if it can match the old cost, I can simply avoid many of the issues created by giving out more points discussed above. So basically, it's the lazy way of not having to deal with those possible problems. But avoiding them is not the only way; being familiar with them as a GM is certainly better.


So, in summary, I honestly don't care about the cost of Skill Trees on its own. The math makes perfect sense, and I'm good with it. It's not because Skill Trees are more expensive that I've been talking about its points cost. It's because I want to grasp "ok, what else does that mean in my campaign?"


EDIT: Plus, admittedly, there's also the fact that I'm a rule hacker who loves to play around with the rules.

[Kallatari]

Following-up on what I said above, in the end, I think it will just take actually playing with Skill Trees to get a firm grasp. It wasn't until after I did my campaigns with skill-based magic and powers-based magic that I started to truly understand the implications of the cost difference between the two. No matter how much prep-math I do in advance, it's going to be the same thing for Skill Trees vs current skills.

But the prep-math doesn't hurt ;)

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Following-up on what I said above, in the end, I think it will just take actually playing with Skill Trees to get a firm grasp. It wasn't until after I did my campaigns with skill-based magic and powers-based magic that I started to truly understand the implications of the cost difference between the two. No matter how much prep-math I do in advance, it's going to be the same thing for Skill Trees vs current skills.

But the prep-math doesn't hurt ;)

Yeah, using both is my plan too. Making them how chip slots and such work in my space opera campaign is a simple way to test with minimal disruption and no one having to rebuild characters.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Kromm

So, even if you laugh off points, be sure you want this in your game. "I don't care about points" is an aesthetic consideration. Being able to handle extra systems is a practical one, dependent on your degree of GM fu.

Thanks for the additional commentary! I agree, running more systems simultaneously becomes increasingly complex and load-heavy. It depends on the GM, and the players (and how much the GM is happy to have the players help with some of the lifting). It also depends on time. Over time, you learn things to a deeper, reflexive level, and it becomes easier to add more nuance and detail.

Having a consistent, accurate, foundation is the basis of good rule sets. It's really only then that you can safely float things out to a wider, less rigid path, because you know where the safe ground remains. So it makes complete sense that Line Editor Mode needs to follow that more rigid path and, frankly, I'm glad that it does.

I think Skill Trees will grow (I know...but who can resist the constant opportunities?) on folks, and there will be plenty of examples of parallel and integrated use, as well as stand alone.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

Following-up on what I said above, in the end, I think it will just take actually playing with Skill Trees to get a firm grasp. It wasn't until after I did my campaigns with skill-based magic and powers-based magic that I started to truly understand the implications of the cost difference between the two. No matter how much prep-math I do in advance, it's going to be the same thing for Skill Trees vs current skills.

But the prep-math doesn't hurt ;)

Yup, agree to all that and your previous note. I hope it didn't come across that I was being accusatory of anyone who is working the numbers and making comparisons - that was certainly not the intent. As I just commented in reply to Kromm, having solid foundations is critical to any building, including variations in a game system. It's been really useful to see your work-throughs, and I appreciate it very much.

[jackcelso]

NOT ONE FULL example with levels and NH values either in the book or in this thread....


Changing what didn't need to be change. Instead of redoing the skill system,they could rebuild the magic system and its gaps...

Meanwhile no GURPS denizens at site...

[Farmer]

Perhaps you could work through one and provide it? It seems important to you, since you've complained twice.

There are already multiple alternative magic systems available. Thaumatology lists heaps, then there's the THRPM book, and many Pyramid variations.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by jackcelso

NOT ONE FULL example with levels and NH values either in the book or in this thread....


Changing what didn't need to be change. Instead of redoing the skill system,they could rebuild the magic system and its gaps...

Meanwhile no GURPS denizens at site...

GURPS Denizens includes Thieves, Swashbucklers, and Barbarians so far.
3 is more than none.
As for GURPS Magic systems we have GURPS Magic, Sorcery, Divine Favor, Totems, and RPM as full supplements several with supplemental material. And Thaumatology plus Pyramid and numerous supplements give us partial or building blocks for far more. Is there any other system that comes close to so many diversified magic systems? Different spell lists or core attributes is a minor variation rather than a separate system the way the fist list of 5 I gave, plus Book/Path.

As for change that does not need to be changed, that is a subjective option and those are not universally applicable. Everyone has a right to like or want what they want, but lets knock other peoples choices ok?

What gets written is primarily up to a freelance author and management thinking the pitch will sell. Comments like that discourage rather than encourage writers.
Who wants to write knowing they will get more complaints than praise? What intelligence manager will authorize a project that it appears will be too controversial and that people who will only support a very specific or narrow supplement will buy?

If you want something, post what you want in such a way that inspires and encourages someone.

[Kromm]

Also remember that there is no "they." There is one full-time person assigned to GURPS – me – and I have limitations:

• I can approve and make happen only what freelance writers want to write. I cannot command manuscripts into existence just because I want or a fan wants a thing. The process is bottom-up, not top-down. It has never been top-down for GURPS the way it sometimes has been for other games.
  
  
• I can write a few things when I have time, but I'm not interested in or an expert on every subject. There are things I'm good at and things I'm bad at, like every writer. When a requested item isn't interesting to a freelancer and isn't in my sphere of competence, it doesn't get written.
  
  
• "When I have time" isn't the usual situation. Even when I have the right competences to write something, I'm the only one who has the knowledge to review first drafts, counsel writers on rules, check stats, edit crunchy supplements, etc., so I usually have things that come before writing.

This isn't to downplay what Steven and Nikki do for GURPS, but they're not crunch experts, so I can't kick things like templates, creatures, system redesigns, or new systems to them.

[Kallatari]

Originally Posted by Farmer

Yup, agree to all that and your previous note. I hope it didn't come across that I was being accusatory of anyone who is working the numbers and making comparisons - that was certainly not the intent. As I just commented in reply to Kromm, having solid foundations is critical to any building, including variations in a game system. It's been really useful to see your work-throughs, and I appreciate it very much.

No worries. I didn't feel you were accusing me of anything. And my own apologies if I sounded mad at you. That likewise was not my intent.

Over the last 20 years of tinkering with GURPS I learned, usually the hard way, that just because A has no direct relationship with B in the game mechanics/rules, it doesn't mean that you can change A without impacting B. So when I see something like "it's just points", that just triggers alarm bells in me. And that fear of "don't make these same mistakes I once made" is most likely why I went a bit overboard in regards to the length of my response.

Still, I'd rather share my rule-hacking experiences with others who might not have the same rule-tinkering experience so that when they do a rule change, especially one like Skill Trees, they can already be aware of some of those impacts. So in that regards, I don't regret my long response. But I maybe should have introduced it that way at the beginning instead of only as a response to your post. Again, sorry about that.