Skill Advancement

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by martinl

Almost everyone already does this somewhat. "I know this isn't the 100% optimal build for my PC power wise, but it fits them." I think you just make this your primary motivation, and view the CP as a constraint you need to work around, not an optimization target themselves.

So in my PCs/games there's no DX+30 swordsmen because it doesn't fit anyone's character concept. Even my high crunch low fluff games have a enough expectations of the PCs as characters that this is not really a problem.

While I agree with you that this approach works given cooperative players, I find it ascetically unpleasing. I desire a system that can handle a variety of different types of players.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

While I agree with you that this approach works given cooperative players, I find it ascetically unpleasing. I desire a system that can handle a variety of different types of players.

Generally, if you're relying on a system to limit the chances a player who wants different things than you from their gaming has to ruin your fun, you've already failed.

Gamist systems, like chess or intricately balanced German board games, are indifferent to player motives or buy-in, because there aren't enough options to do anything other than what the game system assumes. So you can play chess or gamist board games with someone who has no shared interests with you, does not want to explore the same world or characters.

For roleplaying, I have not found the same to apply. A roleplaying system capable of preventing uncooperative players from doing things the GM doesn't want also prevents the GM and cooperative players from doing what they do want.

Like shackles and ball-gags, they enable a particular type of play, but restrain far too much to be sustainable through a relationship.

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by Icelander

For roleplaying, I have not found the same to apply. A roleplaying system capable of preventing uncooperative players from doing things the GM doesn't want also prevents the GM and cooperative players from doing what they do want.

Like shackles and ball-gags, they enable a particular type of play, but restrain far too much to be sustainable through a relationship.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. It’s not about player vs GM conflict. I just want rules that create the right motivations for players than are optimizers. Not necessarily min/maxers but people who will analyze the rules and at least tey and build a solid character. When you just ask them not to break the game they rightly might ask — what do you mean? They expect the game to prevent them from outright breaking things.

[Keampe]

Forgive me for being 9 pages late to the party!

Seriously, though, I think the decision to go with the base way of doing things is probably the best way to go, as it works for most types of games. That being said, GURPS is a game designed around using alternate rules. In fact there are a lot of rules in GURPS that are mutually exclusive and lots more that don't necessarily work together very well. Your "Harsh Realism" rules, while not contravening your "Bullet-Proof Nudity" rules probably don't belong in the same setting. But first take a look at the base rules and run with them. You will likely find what works - likely to be most - what doesn't and what you'd just prefer to change. Then look at the published alternate rules 'cause there's a good chance what you're trying to change someone else has already made.

As for ramping up skill costs - this is one of the few I haven't found. So what I've done is taken the original (1, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 totaling 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28) and made it (1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 totaling 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37) You can extrapolate from there. This necessitates a ramping up of attribute costs as otherwise at a certain level it becomes cheaper to just raise the attributes. What I did was 11, 12, 13 where normal cost 14, 15, 16 were double cost 17, 18, 19, were triple cost and 20 was X4. I don't believe anyone went beyond 15 and IIRC there was only one of those.

YMMV. Also, I tend to put talents as really part of the attributes. By this I mean even people with 10's across the board have individuals that are better at some things than others. Talents are basically a refinement of the base capabilities of a character before skills.

Just my (belated) 2c.

- Shane

[hal]

Originally Posted by johndallman

3e had several unsatisfactory features:


Buying Physical skills up to high levels was expensive, and buying up attributes in play was double the price you paid at character generation.

This is one thing that I will bring back to my 4e games to be blunt. The idea that just buying up stats after start of play ignores the fact that by a given point in time, the body is largely done improving, and the IQ of an individual rarely changes THAT much.

Sadly, GURPS now encourages Min/Max building, and worse yet, has encouraged Point cost inflation. Now it is not uncommon to build characters on 400 to 500 points - whereas, some have stuck to keeping the starting costs around 150 to 200. My cyberpunk campaigns are usually limited to around 225 character points. Why 225? 150 x 1.5 to match the idea that GURPS 4e's characters are now built upon 150 points instead of 100. Keeping starting points low makes players think HARD about what they want to have.

In all? We each do with GURPS what we want and life is good regardless of how you do it. This is why I tease people from time to time saying that I play GURPS 3.5 (at least within our group). GURPS 3e rules mixed in for some things, GURPS 4e for the rest.

[Emerikol]

Shane,
I think something along these lines is worth studying. I would absolutely limit attribute increases whether I changed skills or not. I’ve be considering an attribute rule that was no more additions than your starting purchase on an attribute. So a 12 can go to 14 or a 13 can go to 16.

[Keampe]

I might go for a flat number in that case - everybody can improve somewhat. Someone who has a 10 might just not have done things to develop, yet. Maybe 2 or 3 points max above starting? Or maybe you can improve a minimum of 1 point even if you didn't put points there?

- Shane

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by Keampe

I might go for a flat number in that case - everybody can improve somewhat. Someone who has a 10 might just not have done things to develop, yet. Maybe 2 or 3 points max above starting? Or maybe you can improve a minimum of 1 point even if you didn't put points there?

- Shane

Yes! Missed that. +2 or double. I tend to think high talent people have higher upper limits.

[Keampe]

Originally Posted by Emerikol

Yes! Missed that. +2 or double. I tend to think high talent people have higher upper limits.

I kind of like this - you're essentially buying potential along with the attributes! What will most likely happen is you'll get starting characters with high attributes and low skills, so people with lots of potential but little experience. This makes them the wet behind the ears beginners who grow in time to become legends.

I like it, I might steal it. :)

-Shane

[Emerikol]

Originally Posted by Keampe

I kind of like this - you're essentially buying potential along with the attributes! What will most likely happen is you'll get starting characters with high attributes and low skills, so people with lots of potential but little experience. This makes them the wet behind the ears beginners who grow in time to become legends.

I like it, I might steal it. :)

-Shane

Thanks! That was exactly what I was going for.