What Power-Ups do you want to see?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Seconding Power-Ups: Gadgeteering!

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Ooh yeah, PU: Alternative Afflictions!

Those two are my favorite in the thread so far. Afflictions are a whole class of useful traits, and they're just a touch clunky. Its a big project though, and you'd want to be sure to get it right.

Gadgeteering would be awesome. I think we're hoping to see mechanics for it in the Girl Genius book, but a power ups book streamlining and generalizing what we learn from that after a while would be awesome.

[scc]

I wouldn't put Gadgeteering very high on the list, both the Advantage and the rules are actually somewhat limited, and I think somewhat over used, the example use in DF4 is to my mind a poor fit for what the skill should be used.

Let me try that again. Gadgeteering has a problem because it's one of a few abilities that break the player/character divide because the PLAYER has to come up with something to be built. There's also the fact that it seems to be used for cases where it shouldn't be, like MacGuyver making his various gadgets.

[finn]

I would love to see a "Power-Ups: Alternate Combat", exploring various ways of resolving combat.

Rules/Option to Use and Drop and Why:"How to be a GURPS GM" already does this by sorting which combat rules can be dropped, and which options to introduce. I would love to see more in-depth coverage on this topic discussing various options from different books.

Alternate Tactical Maps: Rules for using square maps instead of hex maps, or maps without any grids.

Semi-tactical/abstract placement: Rules and suggestions for not using tactical maps in combat, but giving enough role for ranged weapons, and front line fighters protecting non-combatants, mages, etc. What to do and not to do if you want to not use a map but instead divide combat space into abstract areas (like: enemy rear-area, enemy front-line, PC front-line, PC rear-area).

Alternate Turn Length: 1 second combat turns frequently feel way too short, with most combats ending in less than 10 seconds. Rules/suggestions for declaring that a combat actually took "longer" after a fight. How to handle situations where the PCs need to protect a location and make combat last LONG. Suggestions on how to make turns longer than one second.

Fast Resolution of Combat: Rules to settle combat in a somewhat balanced way and also determine the resources lost with just a couple of rolls.

Initiatives: I am fine with just using Basic Speed, but if there any good alternate rules for combat initiative, this book should be the right place.

I would enjoy and use such a book in my games, especially if it explained why a GM might choose one rule/option/approach or another, just as in Alternate Attributes.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by finn

I would love to see a "Power-Ups: Alternate Combat", exploring various ways of resolving combat.

Some of these things are well trod in other treatments, for instance there are two optional systems in Pyramid articles for combat lulls and the famous Last Gasp rules (Pyramid - 3-44 Alternate GURPS II), both strongly affect the pacing of combat during the combat.



[EDIT]
My bad, Combat Lulls are in a Roleplayer (luckily online here)... man, that really shows my age and how much I have carried old optional rules forward with me...
[/EDIT]

[dataweaver]

Also: while I'd like a book on Non-combat Techniques, I think I'd rather it be part of a Template Toolkit: Styles and Techniques rather than a Power-Up.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I second non-combat Techniques but buying up Skills defaulting from other Skills as Techniques will very, very seldom make sense pointswise. For an average Skill you get Attribute -1 for 1 pt as a separate Skill. You'd need to ahve a Skill that defaulted to another Skill at -4 (a common number) at a level of Attribute +4 to make any profit for buying that up as an Average Technique.

For an Average skill, simply being at Attribute+2 and wanting another Average skill to be at the same level would benefit from the Average Technique approach so long as the default is less harsh than -8 (and I don't think there are any skills with that harsh of a default). More skills shifts things more in the direction On the combat side, if you want a "master of pole weapons" character who has Polearm, Spear, and Staff all at the same level, so long as said level is above DX+0 the Technique approach saves points. On the non-combat side, a character who is skilled in Survival for a variety of terrain types is likely to benefit from the Technique Approach so long as the skills are at Per+1 or higher (although arguably a character with several versions of Survival at Per+1 would be better served taking those points to boost his Per and dropping them to Per+0).

For a character who has a large number of skills that are all Required Specializations of a single main skill, allowing him/her to get all of them by buying the main skill at a higher difficulty level (treating the Required Specializations like Optional Specializations) could have some merit, of course. Above, Land Survival as a Per/H skill could be workable.

[Anders]

It also bothers me that Average techniques are rarer than Hard technique, but that's just my OCD.

[dataweaver]

Average and hard techniques were fine in 3E when half Point pricing was a thing. But the 4E system bothers me to no end.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Varyon

For an Average skill, simply being at Attribute+2 and wanting another Average skill to be at the same level would benefit from the Average Technique approach so long as the default is less harsh than -8.

You only get that fit for wanting multiple skills at a significant number of levels above Attribute. If you wanted 2 Average Skills at Attribute it'd be 2 pts to buy one and 4 pts to buy both as separate Skills. You would onlyu make a profit if you were buying the second Skill up froma Default of the first one - 1. There may not be any Skills with a Default that good.

It doesn't even work out if you're willing to settle for one of the Skills at Attribute +2 and the other at +1. That saves 4 pts from separate Skills but only 1 from Defaults bought up as Techniques. I suspect that your numbers may be too artificial.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

Average and hard techniques were fine in 3E when half Point pricing was a thing. But the 4E system bothers me to no end.

I prefer to just make all techniques Average, and give the ones listed as Hard a further -1 penalty (so for example, Kicking, which is normally a Hard technique that defaults to Brawling-2 or Karate-2 becomes a technique that defaults to Brawling-3 or Karate-3, and is paid for as an Average technique).