Signature Gear - that can of worms...again.

[Witchking]

Wow and I thought 5 points of sig gear might have been a tad much...

Although I have also already run in to the "upgradeability" Issue...I am not too nerfed because I am doing enough damage...but I could do more with what I could buy/procure...

But since I also have weapon bond...

I would not however expect Sig Gear to be a game breaker

Against Say Filthy Rich (50) 100X Start Wealth with Independent Income/1 (1) 1% Start Wealth Monthly Unearned Income...

I get base starting wealth mailed to me every month...

I could have a lot of fun with that....

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

It works if mlangsdorf meant Trading Points for Money to just get vanilla sabers, then using the points to increase saber skill, rather than having the sabers be balanced.

Yes, I meant normal sabers. Thanks for the assist.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by ULFGARD

Just because I can calculate the cost of a +5 SWORD OF DOOM doesn't mean that they're for sale ANYWHERE.

That's exactly why Signature Gear was invented, to avoid needing to replace personal gear when replacements can't be had.

[Humabout]

Yeah, he was basically looking to buy a full suit of DR 10 plate with sig gear. He has since revised his plans in favor of greener pastures and the prospect of just pillaging enough golbin villages to buy it in game with cash instead of CP.

I guess I was still a bit phased by an Action! scifi game I once ran where one player made his from scratch and was the Spoiled Rich Boy with lots of toys. Since being rich was his only real gimmick, I let it slide, and then he went shopping and scared me to death. It's amazing how much gear can compensate for mediocre skill at high TLs. The game I'm prepping now is early TL 3, and Sig Gear really doesn't seem like too big of a problem.

[Anaraxes]

It might also help to keep in mind that Sig Gear is for stuff that's an integral part of the character concept, not just as random stuff you want to buy. It's a fuzzy line, but standard weapons and armor aren't usually the Signature of a character, at least not of an interesting one.

Maybe D'r'i'z'z't has to have his dual scimitars, but if you ask the author "who is Drizzt?", he's probably going to say something about being a conflicted angsty good drow, not "this dude that uses two scimitars". Jayne Cobb has Vera the Callahan full-bore auto-lock rifle -- but you only see it once. Being heavily armed is part of Jayne's schtick, but not being armed with any particular weapon. Vera may be dear to him, but it's not Sig Gear. Indiana Jones has to have his whip, though (and hat), even though they're perfectly mundane otherwise, and he could easily replace them.

What scenes do you have in mind where it would just feel wrong for this character (but not others) be not be in his plate armor? How is the armor integral to his style or personality? Any ideas for cute moments putting the spotlight on the Signature nature of the gear (like Indy's hat rolling after him?) Obtaining some armor is important to the plot of Ivanhoe, but it still doesn't seem to me like Sig Gear for that character.

I like RPK's houserule for splitting the plot protection aspect of Sig Gear apart from the cash beneft. This tends to keep it from being abused as just a better exchange rate than Points for Cash while dodging the 80% Wealth rule. Players will then tend to buy Sig Gear only when it really is important to them that they not lose some particular item.

http://www.mygurps.com/h_money.html

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

It works if mlangsdorf meant Trading Points for Money to just get vanilla sabers, then using the points to increase saber skill, rather than having the sabers be balanced.

This was the situation, yes. Swords, due to their cost, reach this point very quickly. Axes aren't as bad because their base costs are so cheap.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Witchking

Wow and I thought 5 points of sig gear might have been a tad much...

Although I have also already run in to the "upgradeability" Issue...I am not too nerfed because I am doing enough damage...but I could do more with what I could buy/procure...

But since I also have weapon bond...

The thing that really annoys me about Weapon Bond and Signature Gear is that Weapon Bond is a discounted +1 to skill (1 point instead of 4) because you will eventually upgrade or lose the weapon and lose the point, OR you avoid upgrading the weapon and lag behind, making the cheap +1 to skill a bit of a compensation for using a regular old Longsword when everyone else is using +3 longswords of decaptitation.

Its discounted because it's meant to be fragile and temporary.

And then players do the obvious thing and slap on Signature Gear and now the risk of loss is gone and they're even more adverse to ever upgrading it.

The best comparison is someone buying a Steal-able Breakable gadget - if they never get it stolen and never have it broken, then those gadget limitations are free discounts - they loose nothing for limiting the advantage.

Weapon Bond + Signature Gear strips out all the risk aspects and further tangles the character up in the failure-to-upgrade problem. It gets worse with the Named Weapon perk, which lets your weapon upgrade itself, which removes that particular control on the combination of Weapon Bond and Signature Gear.

I despise that combo as a GM. It's terrible.

[Bruno]

Continuing...

Signature gear is fine in some genres. Indy never loosing his whip or hat doesn't particularly give him any troubles - Action games are short on "hat upgrades" and there's really not that much you can do with a bullwhip in the Indy-verse absent duct-taping bits of the Arc of the Covenant to it or something.

I'm rapidly approaching completely banning Signature Gear, Weapon Bond, and Named Weapon (and it's variations) from DF games though - they either provide a trap for the player, or a trap for the GM, or generate free points. Blegh.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Signature gear is fine in some genres. Indy never loosing his whip or hat doesn't particularly give him any troubles

In Action-Reign of Steel, we scored some ETC Storm Carbines with UBGLs. Buying those as Signature Gear with Weapon Bonds made sense: we're very unlikely to ever get anything better. Buying ammo as signature gear gives you plot protection on getting more, between adventures.

In the WWII game, SG+WB was worthwhile for Very Fine handguns and knives in early 1940. Two years of game time and somewhere around 70-90 experience points later we got chances for better kit, at which point the loss of the odd point is bearable, especially since the old kit is still usable.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm rapidly approaching completely banning Signature Gear, Weapon Bond, and Named Weapon (and it's variations) from DF games though

Sounds entirely reasonable to me.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Bruno

This was the situation, yes. Swords, due to their cost, reach this point very quickly. .

Yes, I've tried to work out how much Inigo Montoya spent on the Six-Fingered Sword as Sig Gear and it's a lot. 27 pts at TL4 if I've done the math right

Some of it is a TL issue. Because both Points for Money and Sig Gear are tied to Starting Wealth there's a big difference in how attractive they are by TL.