|
Post by jonas on Sept 16, 2015 2:46:57 GMT -8
What a fantastic pair of words! I've always gm:ed and handled different power levels following that creed, but never had a way to express the concept. Thanks for enriching my vocabulary, Mook! :-D
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Oct 5, 2015 13:34:04 GMT -8
FYI: 3rd edition Stats and Skills didn't go up exponentially (they kind of do at first, but not at higher levels). Once they reached a certain point, it was a flat point cost per level (if memory servers).
Regarding 15 skill vs. 20 skill -- this is because in the VAST majority of my games the players were limited to 100 point characters with a 35-point disad cap. I like low-powered fantasy.
I do not recall *any* character starting with a skill of 20 in anything (though a couple reached that level after *many* sessions of XP).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 15:24:06 GMT -8
FYI: 3rd edition Stats and Skills didn't go up exponentially (they kind of do at first, but not at higher levels). Once they reached a certain point, it was a flat point cost per level (if memory servers). Regarding 15 skill vs. 20 skill -- this is because in the VAST majority of my games the players were limited to 100 point characters with a 35-point disad cap. I like low-powered fantasy. I do not recall *any* character starting with a skill of 20 in anything (though a couple reached that level after *many* sessions of XP). That could be the case. I don't clearly remember anything beyond 16 points per skill rank, because that was already ridiculously expensive. I think the default point expectations were also a difference between editions, with 100/35 being the suggested for 3E and 150/45 or so being the default for 4E; so it's an unfortunate synergy between lower costs and higher points that makes it easy to have a sword skill of 20+ in 4E. Much like D&D, and most other games, it seems probable that GURPS works better when you stick to the lower end of the scale. If it falls apart this easily with the equivalent to street-level supers (Batman and Daredevil), I hate to think what someone could do with 300 points.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 5, 2015 19:23:30 GMT -8
If it falls apart this easily with the equivalent to street-level supers (Batman and Daredevil), I hate to think what someone could do with 300 points. No way is Batman "street level" in any way. He's easily a 1000 point character, maybe more, way out of the "default" 100-150 point limit (or 300 for that matter). I think it was called black ops, a book for 3rd edition based around elite military squads. Those characters were 700 points. GURPS relies on the GM to set campaign guidelines up front. Advancement is very slow by default, and maintaining a skill at a level like 20+ takes up a lot of a characters time. You'll only ever have multiple skills up above 20 if your deliberately running a very heroic game, and not using the skill maintenance rules.
|
|
G.I. Joe
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 147
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, FATE, GURPS
Currently Playing: Isawa Miriko: Split soul made whole again... with memory issues. Homura (Formerly Isawa Kiyoi) - wandering fire Priestess; Girart - a GURPS low-tech combat monkey w/19ST
Currently Running: Fushigina Ronin (L5R 4th ed)
Favorite Species of Monkey: Winston
|
Post by G.I. Joe on Oct 15, 2015 9:29:34 GMT -8
Coming from a player who creates non-optomized characters as a matter of course, screw combat balance! While you may get your Inigos, simply put them in situations where they cannot use their sword. Have them have to talk their way into a town or complex, and put a few crossbowmen on the wall above them. Then if they try to fight their way through, because it's GURPS, their day gets very bad, very quickly. Optomizing for combat only means that they are terrible at everything else, especially with just the starting number of points. Maybe they have to investigate something that doesn't involve hitting things with sharp pieces of metal, at least not only that. It should be fine as long as you give each player a time to shine. A good example of this comes from L5R, if you have a player who is a courter and their yojimbo. The courtier is useless in combat, the yojimbo lives only to protect the courtier, and can't necessarily talk their way out of a paper bag. I personally think that this leads to more interesting parties than a band of murder hobos that are all combat monkeys. Just a few thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2015 10:31:54 GMT -8
You would think that optimizing for combat should balance by being terrible in everything else, but combat only requires one skill, and there are enough different skills that nobody can afford to be good in all situations.
Maybe you can only fight your way out of half of your problems, and then work through three other types of situation with decent competence, but utterly fail at anything in which you're untrained. That's still way better off than someone who invested in something other than fighting, can't fight her way out of a paper bag, and instead can get through five types of situation with decent competence.
There's just not enough of a trade-off involved, because the one fighting skill is useful in so many more situations than any other one skill. The only balance is if you're playing in a setting where fighting just never comes up (or comes up no more often than any other single skill), which tends to not be the case for the exciting sorts of games that people like to play.
Combat, especially in GURPS, is high stakes. You can usually afford to lose at some tasks, in some circumstances, because you can make up for that loss at a later point. Combat is not usually one of those tasks. If you fail at combat, then you're dead, and it doesn't matter how interesting and well-diversified the character is because you can't roleplay a character who is dead.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 15, 2015 13:11:44 GMT -8
You would think that optimizing for combat should balance by being terrible in everything else, but combat only requires one skill, and there are enough different skills that nobody can afford to be good in all situations. Maybe you can only fight your way out of half of your problems, and then work through three other types of situation with decent competence, but utterly fail at anything in which you're untrained. That's still way better off than someone who invested in something other than fighting, can't fight her way out of a paper bag, and instead can get through five types of situation with decent competence. There's just not enough of a trade-off involved, because the one fighting skill is useful in so many more situations than any other one skill. The only balance is if you're playing in a setting where fighting just never comes up (or comes up no more often than any other single skill), which tends to not be the case for the exciting sorts of games that people like to play. Combat, especially in GURPS, is high stakes. You can usually afford to lose at some tasks, in some circumstances, because you can make up for that loss at a later point. Combat is not usually one of those tasks. If you fail at combat, then you're dead, and it doesn't matter how interesting and well-diversified the character is because you can't roleplay a character who is dead. I disagree with this. You speak as if the game is moving from one combat to another, hoping not to die. You can actually play this way (zombie survival for example), but that's the exception rather than the rule. Yes, combat is high stakes. But really, for a starting character at the 100 point level, all you really need is a 12 for your "core" skills. Maybe up that to 14 if you want to be really awesome. You're then going to hit 75% (or 90% at level 14) of the time. If a GM throws highly trained assassins or a SEAL team at a crew of 100 point characters they are just being a dick. You also are not guaranteed to die if you lose combat - you don't actually start making death checks until after you are in negative 1xHP (IIRC). Unless the bleeding rules are in play, you're probably not going to die right away even if you're taken down quickly. It's also the case that if you don't have a good spread of skills in GURPS you're gonna have a bad time. Want to kick that door in? You better have a point in forced entry or you're going to be rolling at default (ST-3 I think). There's a list of "adventurer" skills in the book that illustrates this.... I'll update with the list when I find it. EDIT: The GURPS line editor posted this ages ago, I'm fairly certain there is a similar list in the 4th ed characters book too: forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=369148&postcount=21
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2015 13:41:44 GMT -8
You can also use your combat skill to avoid combat, if you have a reputation or another way of making your skill known. Nobody wants to risk even starting a fight with someone who can consistently make a called shot to the eye. And if you're willing to engage, because you're confident in the outcome, then that can accomplish many goals without ever needing to fight. That's got to be worth at least as much any other skill, just in itself.
Combat is scary, and should be avoided at almost any cost. But it can happen at any time, without your consent, and there's no such thing as fairness in the universe. The GM isn't being a jerk by sending special forces after you, if circumstances actually warrant such a thing.
I'm not saying that Knife or Pistol is the be-all and end-all of gameplay, just that it's a significantly better investment than almost anything else you can do with those points. You need to cover a LOT of bases before you gain as much agency within the narrative as someone who is nigh-invincible in direct combat.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 15, 2015 13:55:42 GMT -8
You can also use your combat skill to avoid combat, if you have a reputation or another way of making your skill known. Nobody wants to risk even starting a fight with someone who can consistently make a called shot to the eye. And if you're willing to engage, because you're confident in the outcome, then that can accomplish many goals without ever needing to fight. No you can't. Unless you use the skill to do a trick shot of some sort, perhaps combined with the intimidate skill. Reputations have to be bought with points, and you could easily buy such a reputation WITHOUT having a 20 in the skill. Reputations don't have to be true either. "William Wallace is eight feet tall!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2015 14:35:34 GMT -8
Sorry, I forgot. That's one of the things about GURPS that I've never quite been able to get the hang of. It's supposed to use game mechanics which closely model the narrative reality, but when I try to use those mechanics in order to model a particular reality that I have in mind, I can never quite figure how it translates, so I end up with something that isn't what I expect it to be. A real character who is good with a weapon - and everyone knows it - and who can use that skill to intimidate people - should have a good weapon skill and a decent intimidation skill and probably a Reputation to corroborate all of that. If the character only has some ludicrous weapon skill, then it doesn't matter how many times you demonstrate your ability and willingness to eye-shot anyone who opposes you, because nobody will ever be afraid of you... and that's when I draw a blank, because there's an insurmountable gap between the mechanics and the reality which those mechanics are trying to represent. It's probably in the top three reasons why I stopped playing GURPS, is the level of system mastery required in order to actually figure out how to correctly model any given reality. Like, I'm creating a world where orks are supposed to be super tough and scary, and I'll remember to account for their stat adjustments and give them a racial Reputation and Ugly and a couple of other traits, but I'll forget that cannibalism counts as an Odious Personal Habit aside from the Reputation thing, and then all of the point costs and game effects are skewed by the time that would become relevant Edit: Not to sound like I'm picking on GURPS for this, or anything. There are a lot of games which have similar issues, especially around Intimidation, where the mechanics for resolving the situation don't quite line up as well as they could with the actions that take place in the game world. To a significant extent, this is symptomatic of the larger issue with any game that uses mechanics to resolve social interactions, which is a topic that has been discussed at length on previous occasions.
|
|
|
Post by HourEleven on Oct 15, 2015 19:40:19 GMT -8
That's one of the reasons I don't let my players make their own characters in Gurps. They give me a narrative write up, I build the mechanics, then we go over both together to make sure the mechanics reflect what they want to play.
If they write up a character that's a master sword man, but no one knows it, I can build that. If they write a swordsman who stole the sword and never used it but spread rumors about themself being a scary mercenary, I can build that, too.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 15, 2015 20:48:17 GMT -8
Yeah, as a GM, be ready to provide an "approved list" of skills, as well as a "probably required to live in the setting" list, along with some example archetype ideas to get the guidelines clear. Or just make their characters for them like HourEleven does, that works too
|
|
|
Post by mook on Oct 16, 2015 5:52:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by HourEleven on Oct 16, 2015 9:41:01 GMT -8
Yeah, as a GM, be ready to provide an "approved list" of skills, as well as a "probably required to live in the setting" list, along with some example archetype ideas to get the guidelines clear. Or just make their characters for them like HourEleven does, that works too First thing I always do is build a "rules tweak set of advantages and junk" to set up the genre (hard to kill, etc. If I'm running something cinematic) which every PC gets for free. Then I also build a set of "ignored rules" and "altered options" in a packet for my players so they know what to expect (disregarded all injury and hospital time line based rules for a Saturday morning cartoon style game, etc.).
|
|