Are there any supplements that have revisited GURPS attributes?

[FF_Ninja]

I've done a cursory bit of research, looking to see if there were any publications or splatbooks that looked at changing the attributes GURPS characters are founded on. I didn't come up with anything, but considering the ridiculous amount of GURPS material out there, that isn't really saying anything.

I wouldn't mind checking out an alternative to the current Attribute system, ideally to curtail the ease at which a character with a high attribute can "Take 1" in a bunch of skills and be incredibly effective. It always seemed a little... unbalanced.

Maybe this is as much a Skills question as an Attributes one?

[MrFix]

GURPS 4th - Power-Ups 9 - Alternate Attributes

ideally to curtail the ease at which a character with a high attribute can "Take 1" in a bunch of skills and be incredibly effective. It always seemed a little... unbalanced.

Quickest way to break the game. This must be a professional illness of a GURPSer - to be deathly afraid of attributes, as if they aren't present on the same character sheet and don't cost points.

Here's a much better advice than messing with attributes - if you believe that a skill roll success is based explicitly on knowledge and experience, make the player roll it based on 10, rather than his attribute. Problem solved, no need to rebalance everything else that keys off of attributes, and it takes almost zero effort from your end.

[Phantasm]

Power-Ups 9: Alternate Attributes deals with changing the core attributes of the system. Even before that, Pyramid #3/120 has an article, The Fifth Attribute, which added another attribute and secondary for magic users.

I think there may be other articles that deal with skills, but I'm not sure.

Note that the "Raise the attributes high and drop 1 point in skills" is subject to any attribute caps the GM may apply. GURPS by its very nature as a toolkit gives the GM a lot of power in that regard, because not every game can be handled the same way. Some folks will cap IQ and DX at 15 or even 14 in their games, relying on more points in Talents and skills than the GMs who say "20s across the board? Go for it!"

YMMV, as always. Clear as mud?


[Edit] Ninjaed!

[Kesendeja]

Pyramid 3/83: Alternate GURPS IV offers Knowing Your Own Strength, which brings Strength in line with the rest of the attribute spread.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by FF_Ninja

I wouldn't mind checking out an alternative to the current Attribute system, ideally to curtail the ease at which a character with a high attribute can "Take 1" in a bunch of skills and be incredibly effective. It always seemed a little... unbalanced.

There are a few counters to that. You can find two of them in Pyramid #3/65. "Buckets of Points" gives you a basic framework to divide available points into "buckets," and you could easily have Attributes and Skills in separate such, so that you can't really shift points (which is usually what the "take 1" phenomenon is about - you want a bunch of skills at high level, so it's more cost-effective to just boost their controlling attribute). "By Default" instead makes it so one's default is based on half the controlling attribute, so it's much harder to get to the point of "take 1."

Another option is to make frequent use of requiring rolls involving another attribute. For a DX-monkey, needing to notice details (Per) or identify something (IQ) based on their skill is going to be tough if they have their skill at only DX+0, because then it becomes Per+0 or IQ+0. For a genius relying on high IQ, needing an HT based roll to keep focus while exhausted, or needing to float to DX for precision work, can be quite the challenge if the player spent all their points on IQ.

Personally, being the type who favors carrots over sticks, I like to come at it from the opposite direction. My issue isn't that high attributes can be efficient, it's that modest attributes with a large number of high skills isn't efficient. One of my preferred solutions is an Advantage I simply call Training, that must be specialized between Physical and Mental (although the same character could certainly have both) and costs [15] per level. Each level gives a +1 to all skills the character has invested [1] or more in and that is primarily based on DX/HT (for Physical) or IQ/Per/Will (for Mental). This functions as though the character had additional levels of skill for purposes of floating to other attributes, determining damage bonuses from Weapon Master and the like, and so forth. So, if a player wants a character with each of Stealth, Judo, Broadsword, Bow, Shield, Polearm, and Acrobatics at 16, normally the choices would basically be a spread between having DX 10 [0] with each of the above at Attribute+6 [172] and having DX 16 [120] with each of the above at Attribute+0 [17], with the latter having the added benefit of +1.5 to Basic Speed (worth [30] on its own), a difference of [35] ([65] if you buy down BS or if you wanted that boost anyway). With Training, you're instead looking at a spread between DX 10 [0], Training (Physical) 6 [90], Skills at Att+0 [17], and DX 16 [120] with Skills at Att+0 [17], with the difference in price being equal to the worth of the Basic Speed boost the latter option sees.

[MrFix]

Imho it's a mindset issue. For some reason too many people believe that a 'smart' character and 'book-smart' character are two opposites that for some reason need to exist in some sort of balance, or even worse, skewed the other way, or that attributes are somehow inherent qualities that character receives as a baby, so when an adventurer has 12 or 13 or 14 IQ, he is explicitly born genius and not just somebody who is intelligent broadly.

Another aspect of it is that for some reason, if something costs cheaper than another option, it's always a bug, or an abuse or munchkin approach.

These two aspects are effectively self-deluding yourself into creating a problem and then seeking solution for it.

On the other hand, it's almost absent in That Other Game. Nobody starts screaming murder when wizard has high INT and thus can cast more spells and have higher skill levels than somebody who has low INT and took a few skill/spell feats.

Attributes are not in opposition to skills, they are not 'skills but better', the skills are part of attributes. A realistic strongman isn't somebody who's got 24 points in Lifting, ST10 and HT10, realistic Strongman is somebody who has 11 ST, 11 HT and 4 points in lifting because nobody is able to grind that one aspect of themselves without developing broadly.

Low Attributes are in fact a disadvantage, lower defaults and more expensive skill levels are the effect of that disadvantage. An IQ 8 character can become a scientist but he'll need to study longer, harder and result is a less broad specialist. GURPS permits such character to exist, and you can create such character, but there's absolutely nothing bad about not making this character. If you have an adventure, and you make a character that is able to succeed in it - that is fine.

Another complaint is that IQ/DX have many skills and thus at high levels you get defaulting skills 'for free'.
First of all, nothing about it is free, IQ and DX cost character points.
Second, not all skills have defaults, and defaulting does not permit usage of techniques and gaining bonuses tied to relative skill level.
Third, GM decides when one is able to roll at default, not the player. Book's listed defaults are not available to all characters 100% of the time. A 14 IQ surfer con-artist is not rolling a default of Mimicry, no matter how many movies he has seen about it, nor does 14 DX Knight get to operate a car safely and according to local vehicle laws.

In short, by persuading yourself that high attributes are a problem because they're more 'efficient' than having all attributes at 10 and then just buying skills, all you do is create problems for yourslef - need to rebalance the game to fit changes to attributes.

And effectively, all that changing how attributes are priced does is adjust actual worth of characters in points - they can afford less stuff or perform less things for the same price. Isn't it just simplier and more effective to lower/increase the point total to fit your vision of the game?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by MrFix

Another aspect of it is that for some reason, if something costs cheaper than another option, it's always a bug, or an abuse or munchkin approach.

I think the concern is that there's a bit of a tipping point, where it becomes inefficient to put more than a token investment in skills. That can have a few effects that might negatively impact enjoyment, like seeming to punish certain character concepts unless they break concept, or pushing all broadly competent characters toward very samey omni-competent characters.

Whether you feel like that is occurring is a personal opinion matter, and can depend on the point level, etc., but it's certainly a valid viewpoint.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I think the concern is that there's a bit of a tipping point, where it becomes inefficient to put more than a token investment in skills. That can have a few effects that might negatively impact enjoyment, like seeming to punish certain character concepts unless they break concept, or pushing all broadly competent characters toward very samey omni-competent characters.

Whether you feel like that is occurring is a personal opinion matter, and can depend on the point level, etc., but it's certainly a valid viewpoint.

I find it hard to believe that any sort of concept will break because they'd benefit from spending points on attributes more than if they spent it on skills. Concept is what your character is and what he can do, not the rigidity in what he purchases with points.

And on all character sheets I've seen, on all I've created, there's always a bunch of skills that are very much invested into, because investing into attributes is EXPENSIVE. It may seem powerful because you can get a lot of skills for 1 point, but it doesn't get you the few skills you need to high enough levels. 10 vs 14 is huge at the bell curve.

And at higher levels, it is indeed more beneficial to grow more versatile rather than more skilled, because having 20 levels in a skill is often already too much, and spending points on broadening up your skillset is more valuable. It's not a GURPS problem or even attribute problem - diminishing returns are ever-present. It is up to the player to decide how he wants to develop his character, and GURPS does not force him to choose any specific path.

And virtually all solutions related to attribute only shuffle points around - these issues are never addressed, they're merely delayed by fact that buying one level of attribute gets you less, but doesn't prevent the same level of competence as before as long as you spend more points.

Plus it's all the same thing - some sort of disconnect of skills and attributes. I can never find myself to believe that a character that spent 16 points on mathematics, 24 points on engineering is not even 1 level of IQ smarter than another person.

I can't find it proper that a character that has 16 points in running, 24 points in lifting, has gained exactly zero levels of HT, ST or Fit. How does that happen? That's the real nonsense to me.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by FF_Ninja

I wouldn't mind checking out an alternative to the current Attribute system, ideally to curtail the ease at which a character with a high attribute can "Take 1" in a bunch of skills and be incredibly effective. It always seemed a little... unbalanced.

The standard solution there is to limit DX, IQ, and HT to around 14 or 15 for realistic characters. A 'Doc Savage' or 'movie Legolas' might have a higher score. ST is different, for reasons tbone the blogger has described (its tied to objective measures which vary by orders of magnitude in the real world).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by RyanW

That can have a few effects that might negatively impact enjoyment, like seeming to punish certain character concepts unless they break concept, or pushing all broadly competent characters toward very samey omni-competent characters.

Yeah, this is more my concern (more the former than the latter - I'm alright with high-value characters having a broad level of general competence that increases with them, so long as they're still able to specialize in a few fields they intend to be experts in). The grizzled veteran with modest DX and high investment in several combat skills should be just as valid of a character as the young prodigy with high DX and modest investment in those same skills (which, combined with his high DX, gives him around the same absolute combat skill level), but the current rules highly favor the latter by means of simple point efficiency.