Rules you ignore/alter.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JulianLW

Kromm's alternate version of Signature Gear seems to me to strike the best balance between points (i.e. investment of character) and money.

Eh, it just formalizes it so signature gear being overly efficient is true at all wealth levels. I prefer the DF version, where it doesn't affect money at all, it just flags an item you purchase in some other way as being plot protected.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Eh, it just formalizes it so signature gear being overly efficient is true at all wealth levels. I prefer the DF version, where it doesn't affect money at all, it just flags an item you purchase in some other way as being plot protected.

This is the version I use now. One point per item, buys it plot protection, though I do expect character to use that item in preference to other similar one whenever it's not clearly foolish to do so.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Rupert

This is the version I use now. One point per item, buys it plot protection, though I do expect character to use that item in preference to other similar one whenever it's not clearly foolish to do so.

I don't mind them using other things over it if it's part of the concept. One of my characters has a 'lucky ax' that he only uses once he's broken any better weapons in range. The ax is more of a good luck charm (with quirk-level delusion) than a preferred weapon and he'll still never go without it at his side.

On the flipside, I'm also entirely willing to upgrade signature gear as 'loot' for an adventure if it can make sense (effectively making the gear better by the amount based on loot they would have gotten plus the amount of money they'd get for selling it). This is especially relevant when enchanting is on the table, the PCs already want to improve this particular item over anything else for conceptual reasons.

I've also let characters upgrade their signature gear into either Ally (talking weapons!) and/or a special version of gadget advantages (the limitation is much smaller because it is assumed you will have it or get it back soon).

[Gumby Bush]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I don't mind them using other things over it if it's part of the concept. One of my characters has a 'lucky ax' that he only uses once he's broken any better weapons in range. The ax is more of a good luck charm (with quirk-level delusion) than a preferred weapon and he'll still never go without it at his side.

On the flipside, I'm also entirely willing to upgrade signature gear as 'loot' for an adventure if it can make sense (effectively making the gear better by the amount based on loot they would have gotten plus the amount of money they'd get for selling it). This is especially relevant when enchanting is on the table, the PCs already want to improve this particular item over anything else for conceptual reasons.

I've also let characters upgrade their signature gear into either Ally (talking weapons!) and/or a special version of gadget advantages (the limitation is much smaller because it is assumed you will have it or get it back soon).

I'm with this. I use Signature Gear as perk (Plot Protected Item) and frequently build characters as having:
Signature Gear [1]; Named Possession [1]; and Weapon Bond [1].

I also let a signature gear item count as the gadget for gadget limitations. So, I currently have a character in the campaign I'm running with Alternate Form (Shark) with gadget limitations linking it to his (SG, Named, WB) fish hook... yes, the character was inspired by Maui.

However, I'm also happy to use The Captain's Boat (P3/71) and similar rules for Patrons in Boardrooms & Curia for large "Signature Gear" type things like spacecraft, abodes, etc. In fact, options like those (and the related "gear or ally?" puzzles) are what finally convinced me to switch, since the point values started looking skewed in comparison--it can be cheaper, otherwise, to have a tricked-out talking sword as an Ally than a regular sword as signature gear!

To the add to the thread: I tend to be quite charitable in letting players buy traits consistent with their concept. Occasionally, these are "oh, yeah, you probably should already have had that. Oops. Go ahead and buy it!" other times it's "yeah, I'm not going to bother making you do anything special to acquire that..." TbaM and WM are the notable examples here. I'd likely treat Talents and such similarly. Skills, spells, and the like I tend to treat normally, but if there's a skill which the player just didn't realize was needed--or where its complete lack from the party is causing issues--I'm pretty happy to let them buy it between sessions (e.g., Animal Handling (oxen) and Teamster after a session mostly consisting of chasing oxen, sometimes attached to a cart, around...).

I think it's standard practice, although not precisely RAW, to let players rejigger their PCs in the first few session as they realize what their purchases do. I have a player whose character has an Addiction. After realizing that it puts them practically unconscious for 2 hours at a time, we're looking at replacing that with some similar, but less severe, trait.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anthony

formalizes it so signature gear being overly efficient is true at all wealth levels.

I'll need to reread it a few times to gain full understanding, but didn't Impulse Buys' repricing of points-for-cash (I think 10% > 100% ?) also balance out SG's superior efficiency?

I like the idea of giving cash CP value (you can use it to buy traits after all, like a cybernetic arm or getting yourself out of debt) but it gets complicated when you time-travel between different TL which have different values for wealth in terms of "earned per month" or Starting Wealth.

The value of cash for gear is static (higher TL are just wealthier and have access to more expensive stuff) so maybe Wealth, rather than pricing the % of a TL's SW, could just have a $$ based cost?

Then there's weirdness where you might have a different wealth or status in different worlds / times with different identities. how do you manage that?

It almost seems easier to anchor different NPC allies to manage your status/finance and then just piggyback off them when you visit their era/world.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Gumby Bush

I think it's standard practice, although not precisely RAW, to let players rejigger their PCs in the first few session as they realize what their purchases do. I have a player whose character has an Addiction. After realizing that it puts them practically unconscious for 2 hours at a time, we're looking at replacing that with some similar, but less severe, trait.

I totally agree with this. As for that Addiction, I've personally worked with a player to 'reverse' a quirk and a disad with each other; Instead of a full on addiction with Broadminded, it became a preference quirk to use that drug when they know they'll have free time (or basically a quirk that says some amount of money and time will be spent on it during downtime) and Xenophilia.

[gmillerd]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

GURPS is a toolkit. It’s not meant for you to use everything in each game. That said, there are some rules that we just don’t like/use. Here are some of ours, and our reasoning behind them. What are yours?

• You can’t block bullets/beam weapons with a shield. (B327, 375)

While not reactive 'blocking', shield sure as hell take hits that would often hit you ... the common sense usage of 'blocking'. With this approach RAW you may not need to make the rule that blocking is needed or wanted.

*****

Shields in GURPS give you portable cover, which is not going to take up any actions or responses HT71,B407,HT67,TS33,SWAT36. If equiped on the high end, they are going to give you a lot benefits on the front line, bonus to DB, crazy bonus dr/hp (to the shield), often you can see through them, often they have multiple illuminations (ir, cone, directed, strobe), they can act as a various tools, give defense versus various cone/frag attacks, etc.

Additionally with training, they are going to give multiple people cover ... those people behind you. And all the room entry / breaching stuff is great, plus the looking around corners stuff is quite cheesy.

Since the DB bonuses don't require skill, handing over a shield to someone at times can be a big boost to them.

The slam attacks with a shield are nothing to ignore as well, especially with other people in your conga line with help actions. That's without getting into the electrical shock attachments riot squads use today.

Beyond the modern era, into ultra, the shield gets pretty sick.

[Anaraxes]

The RAW rules for shields as cover instead of using the Active Defense, Block, start on B407. That is, they're the same as the normal rules for cover. You don't Block with cover, and it matters only when the attack actually hits your cover instead of you. That's harder to arrange with a shield than, say, a wall, as people carrying most kinds of shield have most hit locations exposed while using it. But of course there were techniques to arrange more cover in groups (shield walls, testudo, etc) as well as just carting about really big shields up to the point where they've really become portable wall sections, like a pavise or mantlet.

People have certainly made up their own house rules for shields-as-cover, but they're not really necessary. You might want to write down your own conventions for consistency or reference ahead of time, if that's the way your group rolls, or consult others' ideas (as with the link above) if you want to see how other people apply those rules, tweak them for extra granularity, or whatnot.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

People have certainly made up their own house rules for shields-as-cover, but they're not really necessary.

In theory it's not NECESSARY to have any rules whatsoever for RP ;) but I like TB's you link there.

The precursor to that https://www.gamesdiner.com/rules-nug...elds-and-size/ about modifying DB in respect to SM of creature, as well as having their posture influence it, also makes a lot of sense to me.

So much so, for a sec I thought maybe I had seen it in LT or Pyramid but I guess not.