Campaign with Time Skips

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Novembermike

The problem with things like Unaging is that they are going to be overcosted in 90% of campaigns. If the campaign doesn't actually care about long term time then I'd just make it a Quirk or something.

This is why, IMO, there should be a global Unusual Background enhancement or multiplier for all the age-related traits. In some games, they'll be as relevant as they are in real life; in others, not relevant at all; in others still, they'll be so relevant that characters without Unaging or high Extended Lifespan or Leech (Steal Youth) or a buddy in the party with Unaging with the Halt Aging enhancement will suffer aging decline and be dead in no time (either at the hands of aging damage attacks, or at the hands of time and natural aging).

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

This is why, IMO, there should be a global Unusual Background enhancement or multiplier for all the age-related traits.

I don't quite follow... Can you give an example to illustrate?

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I don't quite follow... Can you give an example to illustrate?

Simple - the GM decides what multiplier is going to be on all age-related traits (Unaging, Extended Lifespan, Short Lifespan, Longevity, and the Steal Youth enhancement for Leech). He decides what this will be based on (1) frequency of appearance of aging attacks and (2) projected length of the campaign in "campaign time". In a campaign where aging will be much less relevant, but not entirely irrelevant, this multiplier might be 0.5x - Unaging would be only 8 CP, and Extended Lifespan 4 would be only 4 CP (all age traits' costs halved). In a campaign where aging is incredibly relevant (lots of time skips, for instance), all age related traits might get a multiplier of maybe even as much as 10x, with Unaging valued at 150 CP and Extended Lifespan 4 at 80 CP. In some campaigns, aging will never come up, and the multiplier might be 0x (all aging traits are 0 CP features).

Basically this would be a campaign feature, with a "standard" GURPS campaign assumed to have an age-significance multiplier of 1x. Ideally there would be some guidelines for how to calculate that multiplier based on how often immunity (Unaging), resistance (Longevity and Extended Lifespan), and vulnerability (Short Lifespan) to aging is likely to come into play in a given campaign. If something like that was built into GURPS, I think it would finally put to rest the frequent arguments about the value of traits like Unaging, because really, their value is highly contingent on the campaign.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

I think it would finally put to rest the frequent arguments about the value of traits like Unaging, because really, their value is highly contingent on the campaign.

As a counter point, if I may, please name a trait -- any trait will do -- in the game that, by the criteria you have established within the entirety of the above (partially) quoted post, isn't highly contingent on the campaign.

If I am understanding you correctly, you have just claimed that the point value of a trait is arbitrarily specific and should be repriced according to the campaign. Am I understanding this correctly?

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

As a counter point, if I may, please name a trait -- any trait will do -- in the game that, by the criteria you have established within the entirety of the above (partially) quoted post, isn't highly contingent on the campaign.

If I am understanding you correctly, you have just claimed that the point value of a trait is arbitrarily specific and should be repriced according to the campaign. Am I understanding this correctly?

DR? Regeneration? These are least contingent, probably, but at the same time, of course they will be less useful in a game without much combat.

Of course you're right about various traits being contingent on the campaign. But broadly speaking, the age-related traits stand out above and beyond all others by leaps and bounds, IMO. Most traits and modifiers are given flat values in GURPS, because the values work for the generic system overall. But throughout the system in a few rare, scattered places, you have things that specifically require being priced by the GM based on the campaign, like Limited Access (p. P57) on Jumper, among others. If some of these are specifically mentioned as being contingent, age traits surely should be.

I'm also largely seeming to be picking on aging traits just because I've seen this debate so very often. Of course there are other traits that will be somewhat more or less valuable depending on campaign, but the shear volume of debates and issues people have with the costs of Unaging et al and house rule variants dealing with this seems, to me, to indicate it has a more widespread perception as an issue.

[Novembermike]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

This is why, IMO, there should be a global Unusual Background enhancement or multiplier for all the age-related traits. In some games, they'll be as relevant as they are in real life; in others, not relevant at all; in others still, they'll be so relevant that characters without Unaging or high Extended Lifespan or Leech (Steal Youth) or a buddy in the party with Unaging with the Halt Aging enhancement will suffer aging decline and be dead in no time (either at the hands of aging damage attacks, or at the hands of time and natural aging).

Actually, it might be better to make aging itself a drawback. Someone who ages fast gets a drawback that doesn't do anything bad until later and which keeps on getting worse, which is bad design. Just mimic it by having the fast aging character get a drawback from aging while the ageless character doesn't get the drawback but doesn't get the points from it either.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

I'm also largely seeming to be picking on aging traits just because I've seen this debate so very often. Of course there are other traits that will be somewhat more or less valuable depending on campaign, but the shear volume of debates and issues people have with the costs of Unaging et al and house rule variants dealing with this seems, to me, to indicate it has a more widespread perception as an issue.

Oh. That's easy to explain. Concept vs Optimization.

It is in-concept for certain character types to have access to these kinds of traits. In the vast majority of campaigns, it is anti-optimization to pay points for these traits as they are out-of-scope for the campaign for whatever reason. Because it is in-scope for certain campaigns and out-of-scope for other campaigns, it behooves the generic/universal system to price a trait as if it were in-scope.

Personally, as a GM, I believe that an advantage which doesn't give an advantage shouldn't cost points. Likewise, a disadvantage which doesn't disadvantage the character shouldn't give points. For a campaign that has aging as out-of-scope, I prohibit aging related traits in the same manner and for the same reason that I prohibit any trait that isn't in-scope for the campaign. "It doesn't do anything, you can't take it."

[Lamech]

For a campaign that has aging as out-of-scope, I prohibit aging related traits in the same manner and for the same reason that I prohibit any trait that isn't in-scope for the campaign. "It doesn't do anything, you can't take it."

If the concept of a character is say, elf, vampire, or guy-who-reached-the-fountain-of-youth, it seems silly to prohibit a trait, because it won't "do" anything. First unless the character just acquired unaging a a few years ago his friends, co-workers and the like will know he doesn't age. Even if a few years go by it will become noticeable. And I'm sure there are a few places were being unaging could get you a bonus. (Boss doesn't need to worry about you getting old, I'm sure there are others...) Sure the effects are cosmetic and minor, but that is still a perk.
(Of course, it could easily be prohibited if elves, vampires, and fountains of youth don't exist in the campaign, but that is different.)


Anyway modifying unaging for normal campaign: assuming the only failures on the aging checks are the crit fails on aging checks its a little over two CP a check. Even if you are making one every three months its a less than a CP a month if you took unaging. You could get a CP a month by freeing up time for training with less sleep and independent income for less AND unaging takes a good amount of time to actually start handing out CP, let alone at the max rate. Of course, if your modified health for age is lower it could average quite a lot of points an aging check. You could simply have unaging mean that on an 17 or 18 you succeed on the aging check, although in a modern campaign the TL bonus will probably make it simpler leave unaging alone.

So basically unaging is on-par with less sleep or independent income. BUT in a campaign with big time skips you might want to change the point value of all these things. If the characters break for N years and someone has less sleep four and they use that time to train? They'll have 7N more CP than someone who didn't do that. Or you could just point out the value of these traits and call it a day.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Lamech

If the concept of a character is say, elf, vampire, or guy-who-reached-the-fountain-of-youth, it seems silly to prohibit a trait, because it won't "do" anything. First unless the character just acquired unaging a a few years ago his friends, co-workers and the like will know he doesn't age. Even if a few years go by it will become noticeable. And I'm sure there are a few places were being unaging could get you a bonus. (Boss doesn't need to worry about you getting old, I'm sure there are others...) Sure the effects are cosmetic and minor, but that is still a perk.
(Of course, it could easily be prohibited if elves, vampires, and fountains of youth don't exist in the campaign, but that is different.)

A perk has a mechanical effect, a bonus of some kind. It can make a (minor) difference. Unaging, in a game where aging and the related mechanics will never be referenced, is a 0-point feature as it provides neither advantage nor disadvantage. It makes you immune to aging checks. This campaign will never call for an aging check. So you are immune to something that will never appear in the campaign.

Why should you pay points for something that doesn't do anything?

For a published example, let us use the Dungeon Fantasy series. Unaging is not on the list of suitable advantages. It is not explicitly prohibited, but it isn't appropriate for a Dungeon Fantasy character to take.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Lamech

So basically unaging is on-par with less sleep or independent income. BUT in a campaign with big time skips you might want to change the point value of all these things. If the characters break for N years and someone has less sleep four and they use that time to train? They'll have 7N more CP than someone who didn't do that. Or you could just point out the value of these traits and call it a day.

Not just time skips (or else really long campaigns) - there's also supernatural, ultra-tech, and disease-based aging "damage" to contend with. Having to face the villain with the "aging ray", or the Leech with Steal Youth, even a campaign lasting only 5 campaign years for normal humans could make Unaging, Longevity, or Extended Lifespan a big deal.