Dose Lowering Will or Per when raising IQ count against the disadvantage limit?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by hal

One of the points I almost made earlier, but largely stayed away from after Kromm weighed in was this...

Suppose you have a character built on 150 points, with 75 points in disadvantages? Further suppose, the player's character gets into a massive melee that results in the separation of the character's weapon hand from its arm? Is the GM bound to honor the "disadvantage limits" at that point in the game or does he say to himself "Well, the disadvantage limit is 75 points, and he already has that, so he can't have any new disadvantages" or does he simply state "Oh well, them's the breaks, and he's now got the original 75 he started with, and the additional -10 he gained in play?"

Obviously and uncontrovertially the latter. The former is a mind-boggling failure to understand the meaning disadvantage limit. But this seems to have nothing to do with your later argument or mine. I didn't say anything at all about Disadvantage limits!

Originally Posted by hal

For those who want to observe some limit - I'd say "Go for it". For those who say "But logically, or realistically, there should be no such limit" I'd say are equally justified. In the end - there won't be any men-in-black to show up at your doorstep and confiscate your game materials because you don't adhere to some specific standard in your game. ;)

So, is this some sort of strange attempted strawman of me, or are you pointing out that, as we already all know, the Disadvantage limit is optional?

[hal]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Obviously and uncontrovertially the latter. The former is a mind-boggling failure to understand the meaning disadvantage limit. But this seems to have nothing to do with your later argument or mine. I didn't say anything at all about Disadvantage limits!

So, is this some sort of strange attempted strawman of me, or are you pointing out that, as we already all know, the Disadvantage limit is optional?

Don't take it personally Ulzgoroth - it wasn't an attempt to straw man you, it was simply an exercise in logic so to speak. The question was "does lowering Will or Per when Raising IQ count against the disadvantage limit". Some have said yes, some have given round about answers largely to the effect it depends. "Raising" an attribute to me, implies "after character creation" largely because one picks an attribute at the start of the character creation. They "alter" or "raise it" as a result of either game play interaction or the intent to purchase via experience points, the altered stat from what it was at the beginning.

So, no, it wasn't a dig AT you specifically. It was a laying out of a logic construct to ask specific questions (the ones I ask myself when trying to answer someone else's questions) and arrive at a given conclusion. Consider it a "Show all work" kind of thing ;)

In the mean time? Always be aware that even if we don't always agree on answers, or philosophy, or politics, or even religion - that doesn't mean that I will have an issue with a difference in opinion. If you honestly hold an opinion, state it to me and maybe you'll change my thinking if you lay out a good logic construct or even a good argument for/against a given point of view. Not all decisions are logical, nor are all decisions emotional. And for some, one's past experience is enough to sway a mindset to a given point that is hard to shake. ;)

[hal]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The disadvantage limit for campaigns represents the maximum bonus points gained during character creation for negative traits. Characters can have more disadvantages than the disadvantage limit during character creation, they just do not gain any bonus points for disadvantages beyond the limit, and they just lower their final point value after character creation as if they suffered an accident right after character creation. If they acquire more disadvantages during play, they do not receive bonus points, they just lower their point value.

Disadvantages always apply, they are just only worth taking during character creation. In my games, characters only pay to remove disadvantages that they received bonus points for during character creation. If they lost an arm during play but then regained the arm during play, they would only pay points for any positive traits associated with their new arm that they did not have after character creation. If they took blind during character creation for points and then regained their sight, they would have to pony up 50 points plus any points for any new positive traits associated with their new sight.

That's largely my point of view - possibly better stated than I would have. ;)

I'm also one to NOT charge players for wealth that the character accumulates as a result of an adventure. Some GM's charge players to pay character points to retain their wealth, or maneuver/scheme/outright confiscate the wealth the character's life was placed at risk for, and lose it all after the fact (if some of the posts on other threads are to be believed - as I've not as yet gamed with a GM who does just that!). Me? Anything that happens post game, is legit and fair game for the player. If he wants to pay character points to raise his social status? What he's doing (in my campaigns that is...) is asking for a chance to actively role play the situation that will cause the events to elevate him in social status. He doesn't get to buy the status with the currency of "Experience points" and suddenly become elevated one social status out of the blue! It is also why, after YEARS of playing as a GM and learning the hard way - always insist that the points earned in game play be placed in those skills or attributes used in game play. NEVER allow more than one, MAYBE 2 points to be sunk in a skill or advantage per game session (this after a player saved up 40 character points and increased his psionic power and skills all in one fell swoop!).

So - while I agree with your statement to be sure, I also suspect that if someone wants to say "no no no, that's not how it works, in my campaign..." they're entitled to do so. Now, if I were on the fence between doing it your way and doing it some other way, it doesn't hurt to see BOTH sides put forth, and making a decision on its merits based on the constructs put forth by both proponents.

[Ulzgoroth]

Okay, let me try a different angle - is anything in your post actually a reply to my post, which you quoted at the top of it?

Because it's the assumption that that must be the case that leaves me in difficulty.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Okay, let me try a different angle - is anything in your post actually a reply to my post, which you quoted at the top of it?

Because it's the assumption that that must be the case that leaves me in difficulty.

Perhaps I should have trimmed the first part, as it was this that I was largely responding to...

"It's trivial for a GM to allow buying a bundle of traits that includes Disadvantages together, like IQ*, but it's not really encouraged or suggested by the books. "

The not really encouraged or suggested by the books was being refuted by the statement that in some aspects, the books actually do support the ability to strip certain things from a given "advantage" so as to render its cost lower. During character creation, paying to have a lower perception than starting IQ, and a lower will than starting IQ, are deemed to be disadvantages and count against character creation as disadvantages - but elsewhere, it does indicate that buying things at a discounted cost AFTER the start of play is perfectly legal. For many, stripping will and perception from IQ is a bad thing and one must pay 20 points per +1 IQ. For others - having only IQ rise and leaving Will and Perception alone is perfectly acceptable, and certainly NOT a house rule by any stretch of the imagination, nor even a bad thing.

As I pointed out earlier, a GM is within his rights to say "at the start of play, your character is deemed to be mature, and his primary attributes such as IQ or DX may not vary more than say, x% from what he started with." Even Kromm posted a detailed chart of "What is IQ" for GURPS 3e that was a rather interesting take...

What precisely is IQ in GURPS? Is it education (something that can be upgraded over time)? Is it raw computational ability? Is it experience that doesnt' fit within one skill or another, but can act in its stead? Can someone who knows how to do one thing extrapolate in a new situation saying "this circumstance is like what I know how to do in another situation" and work it out in the new situation (ie puzzling it out)? His formula he gave was a list of criteria that allowed a player or GM to say "Yup, my character's IQ is 13" based on the building blocks he gave in that article (wish I could remember where and what it was - he'd be better suited to tell you about that!).

In any event - there are a lot of things in GURPS where people say the rules are essentially tools in a tool box - some assembly required. Some of those rules might advocate one thing, but advise another. Some might imply one thing or another, but as we both know...

Imply is what you mean to get across even if you don't state it out right.

Infer is what the reader or listener THINKS you meant, even if that's not what they really intended to imply!

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by hal

Perhaps I should have trimmed the first part, as it was this that I was largely responding to...

"It's trivial for a GM to allow buying a bundle of traits that includes Disadvantages together, like IQ*, but it's not really encouraged or suggested by the books. "

The not really encouraged or suggested by the books was being refuted by the statement that in some aspects, the books actually do support the ability to strip certain things from a given "advantage" so as to render its cost lower. During character creation, paying to have a lower perception than starting IQ, and a lower will than starting IQ, are deemed to be disadvantages and count against character creation as disadvantages - but elsewhere, it does indicate that buying things at a discounted cost AFTER the start of play is perfectly legal. For many, stripping will and perception from IQ is a bad thing and one must pay 20 points per +1 IQ. For others - having only IQ rise and leaving Will and Perception alone is perfectly acceptable, and certainly NOT a house rule by any stretch of the imagination, nor even a bad thing.

Do you have examples of this? Buying Advantages with Limitations does not qualify - a Limitation and a Disadvantage are, from a system perspective, totally different things.

This is a rules text question, GM discretion to act outside the published material is a given, but not relevant to the point from my perspective.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You start to agree then completely contradict yourself. That's what aggravates me most about this topic.
People will either mock me for wanting a "simulationist game" all while saying that it's an optional rule, so it doesn't matter, AND that it's perfectly reasonable gaming feature. Pick a side, please. I may disagree, but at least pick a position.
As an aside, every rule is optional. This isn't tournament rules for a professional sport.

The disadvantage limit has absolutely no effect on whether or not the game can function as a simulation. It's entirely about *point values* not about what traits you can have, and point totals are not simulating anything, which is why they can be set arbitrarily for a campaign.

It's entirely RAW legal to take as many disadvantages as you want no matter what the disadvantage limit is - they just count as -0 points when figuring your point total. People who complain about disadvantage limits on the basis of "realism" don't like to hear that, because it completely undercuts their argument, but it's true. And yes, it means your character will be less effective than the others in the campaign - that's just enhancing the realism since real people do vary.

Though I will give you that basing Will and Per (and charisma) on IQ in the first place was probably sub-optimal. It's a legacy decision from adding a mental stat to Man to Man. I've advocated moving Per to HT for quite a while now as a partial fix.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by malloyd

The disadvantage limit has absolutely no effect on whether or not the game can function as a simulation. It's entirely about *point values* not about what traits you can have, and point totals are not simulating anything, which is why they can be set arbitrarily for a campaign.

It's entirely RAW legal to take as many disadvantages as you want no matter what the disadvantage limit is - they just count as -0 points when figuring your point total. People who complain about disadvantage limits on the basis of "realism" don't like to hear that, because it completely undercuts their argument, but it's true. And yes, it means your character will be less effective than the others in the campaign - that's just enhancing the realism since real people do vary.

This is true, particularly by the wording on p120. But I do think it worth noting that treating it that way would defeat the first motivation advanced for the Disadvantage limit on page 11, which is that too many Disadvantages winds up warping the campaign. If that's a concern for your campaign (it might not be for a strictly character-driven sort) and you run across the odd player who really would pile on extra Disadvantages without getting back points, you still might want to reign them in.

[AlexanderHowl]

But then HT would have 13 points worth of secondary characteristics for 10 points and would still increase HT-linked skills...

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by malloyd

The disadvantage limit has absolutely no effect on whether or not the game can function as a simulation. It's entirely about *point values* not about what traits you can have, and point totals are not simulating anything, which is why they can be set arbitrarily for a campaign.

Exactly this.

—

Steve Jackson accidentally created a simulationist cult when he wrote the introduction to GURPS First Edition and mentioned reality checks. Ever since, we've had people believing that point costs are supposed to track real-world rarity, that attributes are intended to fall on a sensible distribution for a human population, that the IQ attribute is intelligence quotient/10, that most in-game traits even make sense in the real world as opposed to for the purposes of running a fun game, etc. However, Steve was just talking about things like weighing swords, and using prices from catalogs and other real-world sources. Points were abstract – and the things you could buy with them, dramatic tools – back in 1986. That remains true in 2017.

The disadvantage limit is just another dramatic tool. It's a way to prevent the campaign from turning into a freak show or a madhouse. And including reduced secondary characteristics in the limit is just a part of that . . . yeah, it may well be realistic to have characters who are brilliant but weak-willed and oblivious (i.e., high IQ with Will and Per sold back), but the goal of the rules is simply to keep things relatively balanced. Arguing that it's unrealistic to have the disadvantage limit prevent such characters is a rather pointless argument, because the disadvantage limit exists to keep the game playable, not to simulate reality, and the same could be said for basing Will and Per on IQ, and for point costs in general.