how broad should an Unusual Background: Extra Option : Double Defaulter perk be?

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Circular is no problem - with large penalties at each step (with, what, one exception?), a circular default is always going to be worse than what you had before following the cycle.

It also means the possible ways to double default could be mathematically explosive.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I wouldn't do it just because it's complicated. And possibly circular.

circularity would be avoided by still outlawing triple-defaulting

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

Defaulting off of other defaults feels clunky and awkward enough that my normal reaction would be to ask the player to explain their character concept without referring to GURPS system terms, and then see if we can find an alternate way to build it that fits better with the system. A wildcard skill or a modular ability or something, maybe.

the concept is just someone who can extrapolate to multiple degrees

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

It also means the possible ways to double default could be mathematically explosive.

Yes, but you can easily ignore nearly all of them.

Anything with an attribute default will be better at that default unless the double-default runs to a very high skill - so you can trace the defaulting outward from any super-high-investment skills rather than inward from whatever skill you're trying to find the value of.

Skills that have skill defaults but no attribute defaults are a very limited population.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

Defaulting off of other defaults feels clunky and awkward enough that my normal reaction would be to ask the player to explain their character concept without referring to GURPS system terms, and then see if we can find an alternate way to build it that fits better with the system. A wildcard skill or a modular ability or something, maybe.

I think so too.

The entire concept of skill to skill defaults (basically the only case this applies to, right?) is fairly broken in the first place, and adding more layers of complexity to something that is already questionable is more likely to get you into trouble than provide any interesting improvement to your game.

And seriously what advantage does the player see in this? The default system is so marginal that if he can see one, it's almost certain to be in a place where you shouldn't allow this. If a "double default" has enough overlap to be legitimate at all, then there should be a single default from the first skill anyway right? and the rules patch you need is adding that for *everybody*. Conversely if there isn't enough relationship to justify it for anyone, what possible non-game mechanical reason could you construct for one character to have it?

Realistically skill to skill defaults are a kludge to avoid GM judgement calls. The logical rule is "Some tasks can be accomplished with more than one skill, and may have different difficulties depending on the skill used. If you have more than one appropriate skill, roll against the ones with the best odds", but that apparently requires too much controversial thinking or something.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by malloyd

what advantage does the player see in this? The default system is so marginal that if he can see one, it's almost certain to be in a place where you shouldn't allow this. If a "double default" has enough overlap to be legitimate at all, then there should be a single default from the first skill anyway right? and the rules patch you need is adding that for *everybody*. Conversely if there isn't enough relationship to justify it for anyone, what possible non-game mechanical reason could you construct for one character to have it?

You can use Dabbler to get higher-than the IQ-7 default in Thaumatology:
IQ-6 if using 1/8 of the perk
IQ-5 if using 1/4 of the perk
IQ-4 if using 1/2 the perk

A full point in the VH skill would bring it to IQ-3, and this is what is required to actually get defaults in the path skill: the -6 penalty means the defaults start at IQ-9.

If a perk opened up Double-Defaulting then you could have dabbler paths defaulting at IQ-10/IQ-11/IQ-12 (or the Dabberless IQ-13 mentioned earlier) to represent the earliest progressive levels of initiate-level ritual spellcasting.

These penalties aren't actually that bad if the character has a naturally high IQ or could get MoS bonuses by using Visualization (B96) especially if it's got "Reliable" enhancements.

It just allows a more gradual shifting into spellcasting from near-nothing. In many cases the penalty will be so high that it won't be 3 so it is effectively nothing anyway.

[Ulzgoroth]

I don't see a problem with defaulting off other defaults - if anything I find the canonical rule of not doing so difficult to justify.

I do question whether it has substantial real utility for characters, as opposed to being a way to build capabilities so marginal as to lack practical application, or maybe to save one or two points for a character with a scale-breaking, godlike skill level or stat.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I do question whether it has substantial real utility for characters,
as opposed to being a way to build capabilities so marginal as to lack practical application

It's definitely not for providing real utility / practical application, but instead to represent marginal starting-out wizards as they built toward their first point in a skill from bare-bottom defaults via dabbler increments.

Other ways of doing that are represented in other contexts like:

T123 gradually buying off the -5 penalty for non-mage ceremonies (fractional magery 0)

Gradually buyin off penalty for casting in low mana.