What disadvantge would cover this?
Christ's Soldiers
character who is a supersticous mariner belives that if he fights a
mage he must tatto himself to prevent the "spirts from getting him" I
was thinking maybe a delusion and an odious personal habit but if so
how many points for each? Or does someone have a better way to make
this one work out. Keep in mind that while the character does have the
tatto skill many of the tattos are quite bad as he learned on himself
and it takes place in a culture where tatooing is not altogether
unique, but certainly not common. Thanks for any ideas.
--
John
@autodecca.it ^Narkan^
"Christ's Soldiers" <christs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93CFDD9F5DDCFch...@130.133.1.4...
I would say a -5 delusion "My body tattooing _really_ protects me from evil
spirits" associated with an Unnatural Feature (-5 is too much for this one,
though) and/or a light Social Stigma towards noble-class and religious
citizens would be a great compromise =)
Hope to have helped =)
Sam Spade
Most people react poorly to delusional folks. I don't see any need to assign
an extra disadvantage because some people won't like his tattoos. That's a
matter of lower class versus upper class, which is already covered by the
wealth and status advantages and disadvantages.
Just my 2 CP, as ever.
"^Narkan^" <jano @ autodecca.it> wrote in message
news:RLiYa.230716$lK4.6...@twister1.libero.it...
Thomas Tomicek [MVP]
Unnutural feature - imho not :-)
And definitly no social stigma, unless people with tatoos are in general
badly take and outcast in hir world.
--
Regards
Thomas Tomiczek
"^Narkan^" <jano @ autodecca.it> wrote in message
news:RLiYa.230716$lK4.6...@twister1.libero.it...
>
David Johnston
>
> In a fantasy campaing with a very prominent populace of mages a
> character who is a supersticous mariner belives that if he fights a
> mage he must tatto himself to prevent the "spirts from getting him" I
> was thinking maybe a delusion and an odious personal habit
It's not an odious personal habit. It's just a minor delusion.
If the already present tatoos are disfiguring that would make
him ugly, of course.
Wrathchild
associate to a poppulation group that's discrimintaed against or something.
OPH would be if the tatoos in and of themselves create feelings of
revulsion.
--
Wrath
----------------
"When you sacrifice your life, you would
want to make fullest use of your available
weaponry. It is unnatural not to do so,
and to die with a weapon yet undrawn."
Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Elements
Visit the Home of the Wrathchild
http://www.secretmasters.net/wrathchild/
"Christ's Soldiers" <christs...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Xns93CFDD9F5DDCFch...@130.133.1.4...
Douglas Berry
Spade" <s...@spade.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>-5 point delusion should cover it.
Really? I'd see it as a quirk unless it really affected his behavoir
and influenced how people saw him. Does he go on at length about how
his tattoos protect him to stangers? Giggle about how the spirits
can't get him?
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
.sigs under construction, pardon our dust
Sam Spade
quirk would do.
Given that the original message mentioned using an odious personal habit, I
figured the fellow was pretty vocal about it. Hence the delusion.
"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uts4jv83sg8drl0ff...@4ax.com...
Joseph Michael Bay
>-5 delusion should be ok.
>Unnutural feature - imho not :-)
>And definitly no social stigma, unless people with tatoos are in general
>badly take and outcast in hir world.
Yep.
Maybe impose a penalty on savoir-faire rolls (for
higher status), as nobody of high status would have
bad tattoos, if any tattoos.
Maybe no points, or a -1 "incompetence".
--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/
Christ's Soldiers
<wrath...@hippiespammer.dk> and verily he spoke saying
news:_MmYa.46698$Kb2.2...@news010.worldonline.dk:
> Clearly a Delusion, maybe coupled with a Social Stigma if Tatoos
> generally associate to a poppulation group that's discrimintaed
> against or something. OPH would be if the tatoos in and of
> themselves create feelings of revulsion.
>
>
Thanks for all the input, I'm going with ugly (we're talkin Moby Dick
Quig Quay (SP?) character here) and a 5 point delusion. Thanks again.
--
John
Peter Knutsen
Christ's Soldiers wrote:
[...]
> unique, but certainly not common. Thanks for any ideas.
GURPS needs a Distinctive Feature disadvantage. It makes *way* too
much use of Reaction Roll penalties.
--
Peter Knutsen
Rob Kelk
Exactly what game effects would a "Distinctive Feature" disadvantage
have? I assume that you don't want it to modify the Reaction roll.
--
Rob Kelk Personal address: robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> GURPS needs a Distinctive Feature disadvantage. It makes *way* too much
>> use of Reaction Roll penalties.
>Exactly what game effects would a "Distinctive Feature" disadvantage
>have? I assume that you don't want it to modify the Reaction roll.
I suppose it might make you easier to remember,
which would sometimes be good and sometimes be bad.
Peter Knutsen
Rob Kelk wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>>GURPS needs a Distinctive Feature disadvantage. It makes *way* too much
>>use of Reaction Roll penalties.
>
>
> Exactly what game effects would a "Distinctive Feature" disadvantage
> have? I assume that you don't want it to modify the Reaction roll.
Stop thinking in terms of "game effects". We're not discussing a board
game.
--
Peter Knutsen
Rob Kelk
You said "disadvantage" - that's a game mechanic, and game mechanics
have game effects.
If you'd rather that it should be like hair colour or handedness, then
we already know how to handle those - write them down on the character
sheet (or if you're a good enough artist, add them to your character
sketch). There's no need for a "Distinctive Feature" disadvantage in
that case.
David Johnston
We are, however, discussing a game. I'd guess that a distinctive
feature that didn't have any effects apart from making one noticed
would be a quirk.
Christ's Soldiers
verily he spoke saying
news:3f33e370$0$83068$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk:
Umm...just MHO but if your not thinking in terms of game effects
maybe your takin it a wee bit to seriously? It is a game ya know.
Anyway the player seems happy with it and this is the character...
Xuinjan Xuiger (Shin-John Wee-Gur)
Player:
Middle aged asian fisherman.
ST: 10 IQ: 11 Move: 6
DX: 13 HT: 12
Total Points: 100
ADVANTAGES
Hard to Kill+3 (15 points)
DISADVANTAGES
Appearance - Ugly (-10 points)
Delusion: minor / Superstitions (-5 points)
Flashbacks (1d minutes) (-10 points)
Poverty: Poor (-15 points)
SKILLS
Boating-14 [DX+1] (4 points)
Fishing-15 [IQ+4] (8 points)
Jitte/Sai-15 [DX+2] (8 points)
Net-15 [DX+2] (16 points)
Netmaking-14 [DX+1] (2 points)
Spear Throwing-16 [DX+3] (8 points)
Spear-15 [DX+2] (8 points)
Tattooing-14 [IQ+3] (8 points)
Thrown Weapon(net)-16 [DX+3] (8 points)
QUIRKS
Fishy Smell
Perpetually Unemployed
Speaks in riddles and parables
Wants His Own Ship
Zones Out Occasionally
POSSESSIONS (ARMOR)
1 Cloth armor (legs) [2 lb]: PD(1) PD/Imp(1) DR(1) DR/Imp(1)
COVERS(12-14)
1 Cloth cap [0 lb]: PD(1) PD/Imp(0) DR(1) DR/Imp(0) COVERS(3-4)
1 Leather Gloves [0 lb]: PD(2) PD/Imp(0) DR(2) DR/Imp(0) COVERS
(7)
1 Sandals [1 lb]: PD(0) PD/Imp(0) DR(0) DR/Imp(0) COVERS()
POSSESSIONS (WEAPON)
1 Melee net [5 lb]: Damage(Special (B51)) Skill(Net-15)
Throwing skill(Net-15)
1 Southern-Tiger Fork [5 lb]: Damage(imp thr +1) Skill(Spear-
15) Throwing skill(Spear Throwing-16)
POSSESSIONS (OTHER)
1 Fishing gear (rod, reel, tackle, etc.) [7 lb]
1 Pouch, small (will hold 3 lbs) [0 lb]
SUMMARY
Attributes: 60
Advantages: 15
Disadvantages: -40
Quirks: -5
Skills: 70
Possessions - Total Carried Weight: 20
Possessions - Total Weight: 20
Printed using Aquarius Creations' GURPS® Character GURU.
Copyright © 1989 Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. All rights
reserved.
Peter Knutsen
Rob Kelk wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote:
>>Stop thinking in terms of "game effects". We're not discussing a board
>>game.
>
>
> You said "disadvantage" - that's a game mechanic, and game mechanics
> have game effects.
I meant that a disadvantage doesn't have to have a game-mechanical
effect to be worth compensatory points. It can be "real" and it can
"suck very hard", thus being eminently worthy of compensatory points,
even though it does not give any actual minuses to anything.
The mistake GURPS makes it that it feels a burning urge to assign
numerical effects to a lot of traits, so that a bunch of disadvantages
ends up causing Reaction Roll penalties, even though that's not a very
reasonable way to represent the way in which it sucks to have them.
> If you'd rather that it should be like hair colour or handedness, then
[...]
Earlier I said that "GURPS needs a Distinctive Feature disadvantage".
That can, of course, include sufficiently unusual hair pigmentations
or handednesses.
> we already know how to handle those - write them down on the character
> sheet (or if you're a good enough artist, add them to your character
> sketch). There's no need for a "Distinctive Feature" disadvantage in
> that case.
Depends on how Distinctive they are.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Christ's Soldiers wrote:
> The word of the Lord came to Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> and
> verily he spoke saying
>>board game.
>>
>
>
> Umm...just MHO but if your not thinking in terms of game effects
> maybe your takin it a wee bit to seriously? It is a game ya know.
No, I'm not taking it *too* seriously, what I'm doing is I'm
approaching it as if it is supposed to be a role playing game, not a
board game.
> Anyway the player seems happy with it and this is the character...
Some players are happy playing first edition AD&D, so you have proved
exactly nothing.
--
Peter Knutsen
Jamie Rosen
> Rob Kelk wrote:
>
>> If you'd rather that it should be like hair colour or handedness, then
> [...]
>
> Earlier I said that "GURPS needs a Distinctive Feature disadvantage".
> That can, of course, include sufficiently unusual hair pigmentations
> or handednesses.
But how would that, or anything else, be a *disadvantage*? And please,
come up with something a touch more concrete than "because it sucks very
hard." *How* does it suck?
Other than making people react badly to you, the only disadvantage I can
think of for a 'distinctive feature' is that it would make it easy for
other people to remember you/hard to use a disguise. Both of which, I'd
imagine, would be well-represented by modifications to die-rolls.
--
Jamie Rosen's e-book _Vessel of Heaven_ is now available from Jintsu Etexts
Check it out at http://www.eggplant-productions.com/jintsu
Antoni Ten Monrós
> come up with something a touch more concrete than "because it sucks very
> hard." *How* does it suck?
>
> Other than making people react badly to you, the only disadvantage I can
> think of for a 'distinctive feature' is that it would make it easy for
> other people to remember you/hard to use a disguise. Both of which, I'd
> imagine, would be well-represented by modifications to die-rolls.
>
Well, one of the things I love about gurps is that there are many
disadvantages whose only mecanical effect is "you're XXXXXX, roleplay
it!". Things like stubborn, vows, codes of honor, etc... These are the
best knid of disadvantages,, not only they don't cripple your character,
they don't have pages and pages of rules lawering, but they add another
layer of depth to the character's personality. I think that there should
be more of them. They limit your character, but they don't need to have
a mecanical effect. They however, require that the GM keeps close care
that the playres respect them, or they're basicaly getting points for
free...
Jamie Rosen
>> Other than making people react badly to you, the only disadvantage I can
>> think of for a 'distinctive feature' is that it would make it easy for
>> other people to remember you/hard to use a disguise. Both of which, I'd
>> imagine, would be well-represented by modifications to die-rolls.
>>
>
> Well, one of the things I love about gurps is that there are many
> disadvantages whose only mecanical effect is "you're XXXXXX, roleplay
> it!". Things like stubborn, vows, codes of honor, etc... These are the
> best knid of disadvantages,, not only they don't cripple your character,
> they don't have pages and pages of rules lawering, but they add another
> layer of depth to the character's personality.
Quite true.
But a Distinctive Feature, as I understand it to be defined, is *not* part
of your character's personality, it's part of his or her body. So you
can't really *roleplay* it.
Apologies if I've misunderstood what is meant by Distinctive Feature.
Peter Knutsen
Antoni Ten Monrós wrote:
>>But how would that, or anything else, be a *disadvantage*? And please,
>>come up with something a touch more concrete than "because it sucks very
>>hard." *How* does it suck?
>>
>>Other than making people react badly to you, the only disadvantage I can
>>think of for a 'distinctive feature' is that it would make it easy for
>>other people to remember you/hard to use a disguise. Both of which, I'd
>>imagine, would be well-represented by modifications to die-rolls.
>>
>
>
> Well, one of the things I love about gurps is that there are many
> disadvantages whose only mecanical effect is "you're XXXXXX, roleplay
> it!". Things like stubborn, vows, codes of honor, etc... These are the
No, those are the *bad* kind of disadvantages, because they rely on
the player to work. A player can take a behavioral disad like Stubborn
and then cheat by not having his character be any more stubborn than
the average person - so he's gotten away with getting free points.
If the GM protests, he and the player can have a long argument about
exactly *how* stubborn you have to be to qualify for the Stubborn
disadvantage and the compensatory points you get for it.
Good disadvantages are those that rely on the GM to work. Blind is one
good example. A player takes Blind for his character, then forgets
about it, then opens a door, asking the GM "What do I see?". The GM
replies: "Nothing. You're blind".
You can *not* cheat by taking Blind, or any other physical or social
disadvantage, the same way you can if you take a mentl disad.
Distinctive Feature most definitely belongs to this second category of
*real*, cheat-safe disadvantages, in that it relies on the GM to make
it suck, not the player.
> best knid of disadvantages,, not only they don't cripple your character,
> they don't have pages and pages of rules lawering, but they add another
> layer of depth to the character's personality. I think that there should
> be more of them. They limit your character, but they don't need to have
No, GURPS does not need more mental disads, rather I think they should
be struck from the game. Advance compensation for traits which boil
down to changing the probabilities of various kinds of behaviour (e.g.
Stubborn doesn't make you be stubborn *always*, 100% of the time, it
only requires you to be "significantly" more stubborn than the average
person - you can have the Stubborn disad yet behave, some of the time,
in a non-Stubborn way).
The advance compensation system only works properly for the *real*
disads, those that rely on the GM to enforce suckiness (remember: "You
don't see anything, because you're blind").
> a mecanical effect. They however, require that the GM keeps close care
> that the playres respect them, or they're basicaly getting points for
> free...
They cause endless arguments about exactly how Stubborn you have to
be, in order to not be a cheater who took Stubborn for the points, and
then conveniently forgot about them. Endless arguments *detract* from
the fun, they do not *add* to it.
Out there, outside this group, GURPS has a rather bad reputation, and
while many of the reasons for this are due to misinformation ("GURPS
is complicated"), one of the aspects of this bad reputation, one that
GURPS fully deserves, is that you can load up on behavior-modifying
disadvantages to make your character more powerful. Ever notice how,
when non-GURPS users criticize the GURPS character creation system,
they always talk about the mental disads (even if they often fail to
specify mental), about how it's stupid that your character becomes
more powerful because he's Stubborn or Lazy or Impulsive or Addicted
to Tobacco. They almost never complain about the other kinds of disads
(because those other disads are *real*, and that is intuitively
obvious to non-GURPS users).
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Jamie Rosen wrote:
> Peter Knutsen (pe...@knutsen.dk) writes:
>>Earlier I said that "GURPS needs a Distinctive Feature disadvantage".
>>That can, of course, include sufficiently unusual hair pigmentations
>>or handednesses.
>
>
> But how would that, or anything else, be a *disadvantage*? And please,
> come up with something a touch more concrete than "because it sucks very
> hard." *How* does it suck?
That's *obvious* for those of us who engage in role playing gaming.
Board gamers like you will never get it, and that's just how it is. Go
cry.
--
Peter Knutsen
Douglas Bailey
> If the GM protests, he and the player can have a long argument about
> exactly *how* stubborn you have to be to qualify for the Stubborn
> disadvantage and the compensatory points you get for it.
If it's a long argument, I'd say the player is role-playing
Stubbornness just fine. :-)
doug
--
---------------Douglas Bailey (trys...@world.std.com)---------------
I can't see the lines I used to think I could read between...
--Eno
Bill Seurer
> Well, one of the things I love about gurps is that there are many
> disadvantages whose only mecanical effect is "you're XXXXXX, roleplay
> it!". Things like stubborn
Gives a penalty on reactions rolls.
> vows, codes of honor
Restricts your potential actions and gives you penalties on reaction rools.
, etc... These are the
> best knid of disadvantages,, not only they don't cripple your character,
> they don't have pages and pages of rules lawering
Where are all these pages and pages of rules for other disadvantages?
How does the Greedy disadvantage cripple your character more than Code
Of Honor: Chivalric say?
Jamie Rosen
> Jamie Rosen wrote:
>>
>> But how would that, or anything else, be a *disadvantage*? And please,
>> come up with something a touch more concrete than "because it sucks very
>> hard." *How* does it suck?
>
> That's *obvious* for those of us who engage in role playing gaming.
> Board gamers like you will never get it, and that's just how it is. Go
> cry.
In other words, it's a disadvantage because it sucks, and it sucks because
it's a disadvantage. Wow. You sure showed me.
Maybe, if you can't put it any better than what you've said, and you have
to resort to a rather shoddy attempt at creative name-calling instead, you
don't really have a valid point?
Peter Knutsen
Jamie Rosen wrote:
> Peter Knutsen (pe...@knutsen.dk) writes:
>>Jamie Rosen wrote:
>>That's *obvious* for those of us who engage in role playing gaming.
>>Board gamers like you will never get it, and that's just how it is. Go
>>cry.
>
>
> In other words, it's a disadvantage because it sucks, and it sucks because
> it's a disadvantage. Wow. You sure showed me.
The definition of a disadvantage is that it is a trait of the
character (intrinsic or exteinsic) which makes life harder for him or
her in some way, i.e. something that sucks. Your problem is you can't
think broadly enough to realize that something can suck even though it
does not give any penalties to dice rolls.
> Maybe, if you can't put it any better than what you've said, and you have
> to resort to a rather shoddy attempt at creative name-calling instead, you
> don't really have a valid point?
I have *excellent* points, they're just not ones that can be
understood by a board game player. I can no more explain why
Distinctive Feature sucks, to someone like you, than I can explain
what colours are, to a blind person.
--
Peter Knutsen
Bill Seurer
> In other words, it's a disadvantage because ...
Peter thinks that RPGs are players versus the GM and the players are
always out to "cheat" the GM. Some groups opperate that way but many
(most?) don't.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Christ's Soldiers wrote:
>> The word of the Lord came to Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> and
>> verily he spoke saying
>>>Stop thinking in terms of "game effects". We're not discussing a
>>>board game.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Umm...just MHO but if your not thinking in terms of game effects
>> maybe your takin it a wee bit to seriously? It is a game ya know.
>No, I'm not taking it *too* seriously, what I'm doing is I'm
>approaching it as if it is supposed to be a role playing game, not a
>board game.
Well aren't you big, then.
--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ fhqwhgadshgnsdhjsdbkhsdabkfabkveybvf
Joseph Michael Bay
>> Well, one of the things I love about gurps is that there are many
>> disadvantages whose only mecanical effect is "you're XXXXXX, roleplay
>> it!". Things like stubborn, vows, codes of honor, etc... These are the
>No, those are the *bad* kind of disadvantages, because they rely on
>the player to work. A player can take a behavioral disad like Stubborn
>and then cheat by not having his character be any more stubborn than
>the average person - so he's gotten away with getting free points.
If you want to think of it as a board game, I guess.
In any case, the player character doesn't get free points, because
the DM will reduce character point awards for not roleplaying
disadvantages, until they're bought off or played.
Joseph Michael Bay
>I have *excellent* points, they're just not ones that can be
>understood by a board game player. I can no more explain why
>Distinctive Feature sucks, to someone like you, than I can explain
>what colours are, to a blind person.
Okay, so you think GURPS has too many disadvantages that assign
numerical penalties, but then you don't like disadvantages that
require the player to, well, role-play, so it's kind of hard to
understand why you think GURPS "needs" this "Distinctive Feature"
disadvantage. Because it sounds like a quirk, if it doesn't have
any game mechanic effects or roleplaying effects. Why bother
with a new disadvantage for it?
David Johnston
> > In other words, it's a disadvantage because it sucks, and it sucks because
> > it's a disadvantage. Wow. You sure showed me.
>
> The definition of a disadvantage is that it is a trait of the
> character (intrinsic or exteinsic) which makes life harder for him or
> her in some way, i.e. something that sucks. Your problem is you can't
> think broadly enough to realize that something can suck even though it
> does not give any penalties to dice rolls.
And yet, you still can't actually articulate what it is about being
distinctive that sucks.
Antoni Ten Monrós
> No, those are the *bad* kind of disadvantages, because they rely on the
> player to work. A player can take a behavioral disad like Stubborn and
> then cheat by not having his character be any more stubborn than the
> average person - so he's gotten away with getting free points.
Well, this kind of disadvantages are what I like more in GURPS. They
point enfasis in ROLEPLAYING, not in ROLLPLAYING. Oh, and trust me, if a
player is ignoring his own disadvantages, I as a GM will penalize him by
giving really few exp points after each sesion, and/or forcing him to
buy it off, maybe at double cost, it he argues too much
> If the GM protests, he and the player can have a long argument about
> exactly *how* stubborn you have to be to qualify for the Stubborn
> disadvantage and the compensatory points you get for it.
Well, in my games, I tell the players the 1st rule, if there's something
I don't like, I'm the GM, and I can change it, and I won't care if the
said rule apeared in an obscure never heard of book, or in the
compendiums. I also tell them that I have no problem with them trying to
convince me, but that I have the ultimate autority when it comes to it...
> Good disadvantages are those that rely on the GM to work. Blind is one
> good example. A player takes Blind for his character, then forgets about
> it, then opens a door, asking the GM "What do I see?". The GM replies:
> "Nothing. You're blind".
There's nothing worng with blind, though I find that unless you allow
for cinematic blindness or means of extra sensorial perception (not
necesarely the psionic power), it's a bit too crippling for fantasy games...
> You can *not* cheat by taking Blind, or any other physical or social
> disadvantage, the same way you can if you take a mentl disad.
>
> Distinctive Feature most definitely belongs to this second category of
> *real*, cheat-safe disadvantages, in that it relies on the GM to make it
> suck, not the player.
Well, I do have those kinds of disadvantages in my games. Usualy I take
them as a 5 point pack. it usualy means that the said character will be:
Easy to recognize, as everyone will remember him (2 points)
Ill looked upon by some people , however, it's going to be a reduced
group (3 points)
I'ts basicaly a combination of a reaction modifier (limited because it
does not affect everyone, but a narrow group of people) and a reative
incompetence in stealth related skills...
> No, GURPS does not need more mental disads, rather I think they should
> be struck from the game. Advance compensation for traits which boil down
> to changing the probabilities of various kinds of behaviour (e.g.
> Stubborn doesn't make you be stubborn *always*, 100% of the time, it
> only requires you to be "significantly" more stubborn than the average
> person - you can have the Stubborn disad yet behave, some of the time,
> in a non-Stubborn way).
Should they remove mental disadvantages from the game, it would loos a
good deal of it's appeal to me...
> The advance compensation system only works properly for the *real*
> disads, those that rely on the GM to enforce suckiness (remember: "You
> don't see anything, because you're blind").
>
>> a mecanical effect. They however, require that the GM keeps close care
>> that the playres respect them, or they're basicaly getting points for
>> free...
Well, it seems that your players (or maybe YOU'RE the player) are
"powergamers", "powermongers", "rollplayers", etc etc... What I really
like about gurps is that it's a good system for ROLEPLAYING, unlike D&D,
that is a good system for ROLLPLAYING...
> They cause endless arguments about exactly how Stubborn you have to be,
> in order to not be a cheater who took Stubborn for the points, and then
> conveniently forgot about them. Endless arguments *detract* from the
> fun, they do not *add* to it.
Well, I happen to have a stable groupd of long time roleplayers, and
usualy new players try to argue theese kinds of things with me. Usualy
the understand, but if they don't, they end leaving the group. No big
loss anyway...
Players must understand that the GM is ALWAYS right, and that there's no
point rulles lawering with him. That's another thing I happen to like in
GURPS, as most everything is optional, you can simply state that you
don't use that rule, because you don't like it...
> Out there, outside this group, GURPS has a rather bad reputation, and
> while many of the reasons for this are due to misinformation ("GURPS is
> complicated"), one of the aspects of this bad reputation, one that GURPS
> fully deserves, is that you can load up on behavior-modifying
> disadvantages to make your character more powerful. Ever notice how,
> when non-GURPS users criticize the GURPS character creation system, they
> always talk about the mental disads (even if they often fail to specify
> mental), about how it's stupid that your character becomes more powerful
> because he's Stubborn or Lazy or Impulsive or Addicted to Tobacco. They
> almost never complain about the other kinds of disads (because those
> other disads are *real*, and that is intuitively obvious to non-GURPS
> users).
Trust me, I as a GM always make sure that players act according to their
disadvantages (unlike the infamous Int:3 Wis:3 D&D barbarian that always
handled every social situation because the player was quite good with
words), and punish them if they don't. As a GM you have the ultimate
tool, don't give them exp points. Oh, and trust me, mental disadvantages
can be the most crippling ones... but as a GM I tend to reward players
that suck it up, and act as theyr disadvantages would dictate...
Christ's Soldiers
>
> Christ's Soldiers wrote:
>> The word of the Lord came to Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> and
>> verily he spoke saying
>>>Stop thinking in terms of "game effects". We're not discussing a
>>>board game.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Umm...just MHO but if your not thinking in terms of game effects
>> maybe your takin it a wee bit to seriously? It is a game ya know.
>
> No, I'm not taking it *too* seriously, what I'm doing is I'm
> approaching it as if it is supposed to be a role playing game, not
> a board game.
OK sorry to come off like a flame there. Didn't mean to step on yer
toes guy I was just jokin around a bit but now that I re-read it it
didn't realy come off that way.
>> Anyway the player seems happy with it and this is the
>> character...
>
> Some players are happy playing first edition AD&D, so you have
> proved exactly nothing.
>
Well I wasn't realy trying to prove anything here. Just letting
everyone see what we decided on. Anyway I'm not going for super
realism in the fantasy campaing here and extra rules that don't
effect game play are best left to the GM I think. Thats all I was
saying in my initial reply so no need to go on the defense I
surrender :^)
<flame bait>What's wrong with 1st ed. D&D?!?!?</flame bait>
--
John
Peter Knutsen
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@knutsen.dk> writes:
>
>
>
>>I have *excellent* points, they're just not ones that can be
>>understood by a board game player. I can no more explain why
>>Distinctive Feature sucks, to someone like you, than I can explain
>>what colours are, to a blind person.
>
>
> Okay, so you think GURPS has too many disadvantages that assign
> numerical penalties, but then you don't like disadvantages that
I didn't say that.
> require the player to, well, role-play, so it's kind of hard to
It's a mistake to give advance compensation for the mental type of
disads, because the GM is not in on the directe effects of that type
of disads, unlike Blind or Social Stigma.
> understand why you think GURPS "needs" this "Distinctive Feature"
> disadvantage. Because it sounds like a quirk, if it doesn't have
> any game mechanic effects or roleplaying effects. Why bother
Because there are effects other than game mechanical and one's own
behaviour.
> with a new disadvantage for it?
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Antoni Ten Monrós wrote:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
>
>>No, those are the *bad* kind of disadvantages, because they rely on the
>>player to work. A player can take a behavioral disad like Stubborn and
>>then cheat by not having his character be any more stubborn than the
>>average person - so he's gotten away with getting free points.
>
>
> Well, this kind of disadvantages are what I like more in GURPS. They
> point enfasis in ROLEPLAYING, not in ROLLPLAYING. Oh, and trust me, if a
So you're one of those retards who can't percieve that people are
roleplaying unless their characters are all exhibiting blatant,
over-the-top Hollywood-grade stereotypical behaviour? That's good to
know, in terms of how much value I should assign to future statements
from you.
> player is ignoring his own disadvantages, I as a GM will penalize him by
> giving really few exp points after each sesion, and/or forcing him to
> buy it off, maybe at double cost, it he argues too much
That'll result in arguments about exactly how stubborn you must be to
qualify for the Stubborn disad, i.e. not being forced to buy it off.
It's stupid. Better to take steps to make sure that such arguments
can't physically happen.
>>If the GM protests, he and the player can have a long argument about
>>exactly *how* stubborn you have to be to qualify for the Stubborn
>>disadvantage and the compensatory points you get for it.
>
>
> Well, in my games, I tell the players the 1st rule, if there's something
> I don't like, I'm the GM, and I can change it, and I won't care if the
When I play, I tell the GM my first rule, which is that he is to
inform me in advance of any and all rule changes he makes. Basically I
want him to point to a document, or set of documents, and state that
those are the rules he will GM under. Usually that's an official rules
book, and some papers where his house rules are spelled out.
If he can't do that, I point out to him that the "M" in GM stands for
"Master", and that he's not worthy of that esteemed title. Then I leave.
> said rule apeared in an obscure never heard of book, or in the
> compendiums. I also tell them that I have no problem with them trying to
> convince me, but that I have the ultimate autority when it comes to it...
You have the ultimate authority to modify the rules ahead of time,
*not* during the session.
>>Good disadvantages are those that rely on the GM to work. Blind is one
>>good example. A player takes Blind for his character, then forgets about
>>it, then opens a door, asking the GM "What do I see?". The GM replies:
>>"Nothing. You're blind".
>
>
> There's nothing worng with blind, though I find that unless you allow
> for cinematic blindness or means of extra sensorial perception (not
> necesarely the psionic power), it's a bit too crippling for fantasy games...
Again, you're making loads of stupid assumptions about what kinds of
conflicts the PCs will get involved in. A Blind character would be
perfectly viable in my fantasy genre campaign, for instance. Because
I'm a better GM and a better roleplayer than you are.
>>You can *not* cheat by taking Blind, or any other physical or social
>>disadvantage, the same way you can if you take a mentl disad.
>>
>>Distinctive Feature most definitely belongs to this second category of
>>*real*, cheat-safe disadvantages, in that it relies on the GM to make it
>>suck, not the player.
>
>
> Well, I do have those kinds of disadvantages in my games. Usualy I take
> them as a 5 point pack. it usualy means that the said character will be:
5 points suggests a very noticable and unusual feature.
> Easy to recognize, as everyone will remember him (2 points)
> Ill looked upon by some people , however, it's going to be a reduced
> group (3 points)
That's bogus, there are many Distinctive Features which completely
lack the later effect.
> I'ts basicaly a combination of a reaction modifier (limited because it
> does not affect everyone, but a narrow group of people) and a reative
> incompetence in stealth related skills...
I don't acceåt the Stealth skill roll penalty, there's more to
Distinctive Feature than that.
>>No, GURPS does not need more mental disads, rather I think they should
>>be struck from the game. Advance compensation for traits which boil down
>>to changing the probabilities of various kinds of behaviour (e.g.
>>Stubborn doesn't make you be stubborn *always*, 100% of the time, it
>>only requires you to be "significantly" more stubborn than the average
>>person - you can have the Stubborn disad yet behave, some of the time,
>>in a non-Stubborn way).
>
>
> Should they remove mental disadvantages from the game, it would loos a
> good deal of it's appeal to me...
I think they should, yes. It causes a lot of problems, and does
nothing good.
>
>>The advance compensation system only works properly for the *real*
>>disads, those that rely on the GM to enforce suckiness (remember: "You
>>don't see anything, because you're blind").
>>
>>
>>>a mecanical effect. They however, require that the GM keeps close care
>>>that the playres respect them, or they're basicaly getting points for
>>>free...
>
>
> Well, it seems that your players (or maybe YOU'RE the player) are
> "powergamers", "powermongers", "rollplayers", etc etc... What I really
I'm not talking about my players, I'm talking about players. RPG
character creation systems should not be designed for ideal players
for for *real* players. I don't plays strictly with one closed group
of people that I've known since kindergarten, instead from time to
time I invite new people to join my campaign. I am not able to phone
the head of the CIA and ask him to conduct a thorough background check
of such an applicant's roleplaying gaming history, and report back to
me regarding said applicant's degree of munchkinish behaviour and how
it has changed over time (e.g. been high during the junior high school
phase the gradually dropped to a low - yet not zero - level in the
college years).
A character creation system thus needs to be robust.
Look at it from the opposite angle: With perfect players, and a
perfect GM, you don't need rules. You don't need *ANY* rules at all,
nor do you ever need to make a single dice roll.
The problem is, there *are* no perfect players. I know people like you
and Bill Seurer claim to be, but you're liars.
> like about gurps is that it's a good system for ROLEPLAYING, unlike D&D,
> that is a good system for ROLLPLAYING...
>
>
>>They cause endless arguments about exactly how Stubborn you have to be,
>>in order to not be a cheater who took Stubborn for the points, and then
>>conveniently forgot about them. Endless arguments *detract* from the
>>fun, they do not *add* to it.
>
>
> Well, I happen to have a stable groupd of long time roleplayers, and
> usualy new players try to argue theese kinds of things with me. Usualy
> the understand, but if they don't, they end leaving the group. No big
> loss anyway...
> Players must understand that the GM is ALWAYS right, and that there's no
> point rulles lawering with him. That's another thing I happen to like in
> GURPS, as most everything is optional, you can simply state that you
> don't use that rule, because you don't like it...
Sure, as long as you state it in advance.
>>Out there, outside this group, GURPS has a rather bad reputation, and
>>while many of the reasons for this are due to misinformation ("GURPS is
>>complicated"), one of the aspects of this bad reputation, one that GURPS
>>fully deserves, is that you can load up on behavior-modifying
>>disadvantages to make your character more powerful. Ever notice how,
>>when non-GURPS users criticize the GURPS character creation system, they
>>always talk about the mental disads (even if they often fail to specify
>>mental), about how it's stupid that your character becomes more powerful
>>because he's Stubborn or Lazy or Impulsive or Addicted to Tobacco. They
>>almost never complain about the other kinds of disads (because those
>>other disads are *real*, and that is intuitively obvious to non-GURPS
>>users).
>
>
> Trust me, I as a GM always make sure that players act according to their
> disadvantages (unlike the infamous Int:3 Wis:3 D&D barbarian that always
So you're able to tell me exactly how much of the time, and to what
degree, I must have my character be mor stubborn than the average
person, to qualify for the advance compensation for the Stubborn
mental disad?
And also, obviously, to tell me in great detail exactly how stubborn
the average person is, so that I have something to compare with?
That's good. Because I hate fuzziness in roleplaying gaming mechanics,
because it creates the most unpleasant and prolonged arguments imaginable.
> handled every social situation because the player was quite good with
> words), and punish them if they don't. As a GM you have the ultimate
Now you're mixing things up. Social skills are not the sole province
of the player, the way mental disads are, because social skills
ultimately rely on another person, usually the GM but sometimes
another player, making up his mind as to whether his character is
manipulated by the player character. Making up his mind as to whether
he should accept the player's performance (player skill), or put more
(or even complete) emphasis on the character's skill.
> tool, don't give them exp points. Oh, and trust me, mental disadvantages
> can be the most crippling ones... but as a GM I tend to reward players
> that suck it up, and act as theyr disadvantages would dictate...
So you punish players who can't read your mind, and thus can't
roleplay their characters exactly as you think they should roleplay
their characters?
If it's not already clear, I'd never get anywhere near any of your
campaigns, nor do I acknowledge you as a GM.
--
Peter Knutsen
Antoni Ten Monrós
> So you're one of those retards who can't percieve that people are
> roleplaying unless their characters are all exhibiting blatant,
> over-the-top Hollywood-grade stereotypical behaviour? That's good to
> know, in terms of how much value I should assign to future statements
> from you.
Don't get me wrong. !st at all, I must state that english is my 3rd
languaje, and that sometimes that makes my statements way too blunt...
Now when you look at disadvantages, they're suposed to be quite extre
once they go past the quirk level. It does not have to be stereotipycal
and histrionic, but it must be noticeable. If for example a character is
stubborn, but I don't feel that he roleplays it well, I'll speak to him
privately explainig him that fact. He can then try to prove me wrong,
and usualy he has a chance to convince me. If he starts senseessly
arguing and resorting to whinning, I'll give him a seccond warning. Next
time we play, I'll hope he remembers his disadvantage...
> That'll result in arguments about exactly how stubborn you must be to
> qualify for the Stubborn disad, i.e. not being forced to buy it off.
>
> It's stupid. Better to take steps to make sure that such arguments can't
> physically happen.
As I said above I'll warn the players that I don't feel they're
roleplaying the disadvantage properly...
> When I play, I tell the GM my first rule, which is that he is to inform
> me in advance of any and all rule changes he makes. Basically I want him
> to point to a document, or set of documents, and state that those are
> the rules he will GM under. Usually that's an official rules book, and
> some papers where his house rules are spelled out.
>
> If he can't do that, I point out to him that the "M" in GM stands for
> "Master", and that he's not worthy of that esteemed title. Then I leave.
If a player does that to me, I'll simply show him the way to the door. I
don't require my players to read anything beyond gurps lite as they can
learn the rules as they play. I'll help newbies when building characters
though (and I find that character sheet generator programs are quite
good too, notably Gurps character Creator and Gurps character builder)
The point to roleplay is to have a good time.
> You have the ultimate authority to modify the rules ahead of time, *not*
> during the session.
Well, as I said, if it's an optional rule, it's that, OPTIONAL, and I'll
only use it if I like it. I'll inform players that I use it, but I won't
inform them what optional rules I don't use, some of them because I
don't even know about their existance...
> Again, you're making loads of stupid assumptions about what kinds of
> conflicts the PCs will get involved in. A Blind character would be
> perfectly viable in my fantasy genre campaign, for instance. Because I'm
> a better GM and a better roleplayer than you are.
Don't resort to personal attack, keep it civil please. As for blind
characters, well, the word is full of architectonic barriers today, in
the "respect the discapacitated" era, imagine in the middle ages, where
most fantasy settings are based on...
> I don't acceåt the Stealth skill roll penalty, there's more to
> Distinctive Feature than that.
Well, when a characer wants to go unotices in a crowd, party, oficial
reception, court or whatever, I ask for a stealth roll, modified with
how hard I feel it should be. If a character's hair is silver colored
(example of distinctive feature), he will be easier to spot and to
remember... And as for the reaction modifier, there are always bulies
that don't like people who are diferent...
> I think they should, yes. It causes a lot of problems, and does nothing
> good.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to have one. I simply don't
agree with you here.
> I'm not talking about my players, I'm talking about players. RPG
> character creation systems should not be designed for ideal players for
> for *real* players. I don't plays strictly with one closed group of
> people that I've known since kindergarten, instead from time to time I
> invite new people to join my campaign. I am not able to phone the head
> of the CIA and ask him to conduct a thorough background check of such an
> applicant's roleplaying gaming history, and report back to me regarding
> said applicant's degree of munchkinish behaviour and how it has changed
> over time (e.g. been high during the junior high school phase the
> gradually dropped to a low - yet not zero - level in the college years).
And I'm talking about my experience with my players. I have a core of
long time players, and often accept new ones to the group. At 1st
they're munchkin-like, but gradualy that fades away. I have a much
harder time with old time D&D players though...
> A character creation system thus needs to be robust.
Gurps system is robust
> Look at it from the opposite angle: With perfect players, and a perfect
> GM, you don't need rules. You don't need *ANY* rules at all, nor do you
> ever need to make a single dice roll.
Most of my sesions are spent without a single dice rolled, and character
sheets are simply for reference
> The problem is, there *are* no perfect players. I know people like you
> and Bill Seurer claim to be, but you're liars.
True, there are no perfect lpayers. there are however, players that try
hard to be "perfect players"
>> Well, I happen to have a stable groupd of long time roleplayers, and
>> usualy new players try to argue theese kinds of things with me. Usualy
>> the understand, but if they don't, they end leaving the group. No big
>> loss anyway...
>> Players must understand that the GM is ALWAYS right, and that there's
>> no point rulles lawering with him. That's another thing I happen to
>> like in GURPS, as most everything is optional, you can simply state
>> that you don't use that rule, because you don't like it...
>
>
> Sure, as long as you state it in advance.
Do I have to state in advance that I won't use the "will is a separate
atribute" rule in CI? wrong! Oh, and mind you, if some player (specialy
new ones) realizes that he got someting wrong when making his character,
because he though that rule X was in aplication, while it was not, or
because he though something worked diferently, I'll allow him to change
his character sheet
> So you're able to tell me exactly how much of the time, and to what
> degree, I must have my character be mor stubborn than the average
> person, to qualify for the advance compensation for the Stubborn mental
> disad?
>
> And also, obviously, to tell me in great detail exactly how stubborn the
> average person is, so that I have something to compare with?
>
> That's good. Because I hate fuzziness in roleplaying gaming mechanics,
> because it creates the most unpleasant and prolonged arguments imaginable.
I must FEEL that the character is stubborn. Sometimes it can be subtle,
sometimes it has to be blunt, it depends on the character's personality.
If the rules are fuzy, they allow to me to bend them in case of need
(usualy in favor of the players). And if someone want clear precise
rules about everyting, I'll simply state that this is not a computer game...
> So you punish players who can't read your mind, and thus can't roleplay
> their characters exactly as you think they should roleplay their
> characters?
Well, before enforcing any unpleasantness, I'll warn the player, and ask
for explanations on certain things they did. Maybe they can convince me,
maybe not
> If it's not already clear, I'd never get anywhere near any of your
> campaigns, nor do I acknowledge you as a GM.
That's your opinion. It's moot for the most part, because I'm pretty
sure that we0re separated by thousands of kilometers, and we will never
ever have a chance to meet. Oh, and should we ever meet, I'll probably
have forgotten about your name and this conversation. However, if you
act like yor posts would suggest, I won't consider you a good roleplayer...
--
Antoni Ten
"Opinions are like assholes, everone has his, and thinks that everyone
else's just stinks"
Mark K Styles
> Rob Kelk wrote:
> > Exactly what game effects would a "Distinctive Feature" disadvantage
> > have? I assume that you don't want it to modify the Reaction roll.
>
> Stop thinking in terms of "game effects". We're not discussing a board
> game.
Well, if you really need game mechanics for something like this, what about:
-----
Distinctive Feature 5pts(/level?)
You have some remarkable feature, not already covered by another Advantage
or Disadvantage (e.g. Apperance, One Arm, Social Stigma) that makes you easy
to remember and describe. Examples include large tatoos, an unusual hair
colour for your race, six fingers on your left hand, etc.
Everyone who sees you gets a +2 (/level?) on their IQ rolls to remember your
presence and appearance whether or not you did anything notable. Artists
(including police sketch artists) have a +1 (/level?) when working from your
description, and those who see a picture including your Distinctive Feature
are at +2 (/level?) to recognize it as you. This also affects the chances
that you are recognized allowing a Reputation, good or bad, to become
applicable. You are at -1 (/level) to use Disguise, Shadowing and similar
Skills.
This Disadvantage can be beneficial at times, allowing you to build up a
good reputation quickly but it generally annoying, placing you at crime
scenes and making it hard to out run a bad reputation.
-----
Roughly, I have to run.
Rob Kelk
<snip>
> When I play, I tell the GM my first rule, which is that he is to inform
> me in advance of any and all rule changes he makes. Basically I want him
> to point to a document, or set of documents, and state that those are
> the rules he will GM under. Usually that's an official rules book, and
> some papers where his house rules are spelled out.
Funny - that's *exactly* what I asked you to do with your proposed
"Distinctive Features" disadvantage. You couldn't be bothered to give
me an answer.
> If he can't do that, I point out to him that the "M" in GM stands for
> "Master", and that he's not worthy of that esteemed title. Then I leave.
Good idea. <plonks thread>
<snip>
--
Rob Kelk Personal address: robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
Blaine
Jeff Suzuki
> Jamie Rosen wrote:
> >
> > But how would that, or anything else, be a *disadvantage*? And please,
> > come up with something a touch more concrete than "because it sucks very
> > hard." *How* does it suck?
>
> That's *obvious* for those of us who engage in role playing gaming.
> Board gamers like you will never get it, and that's just how it is. Go
> cry.
For a constructive response...the one thing that will be nearly impossible for
someone with distinctive features is to simply "blend in" to the crowd. If he
tries to sneak around the society wedding...someone will spot him (and if he
tries to hide the distinctive feature...if it's something he can hide easily,
it won't be worth many points). If he tries to do anything he's not supposed
to...the cops'll get a good description ("About so high, so big...oh, yeah,
and this big tattoo on his forearm..."). If the tattoos are "cool", he'll get
all sorts of unwanted attention ("Hey, where can I get one?").
Jeffs
Bryan J. Maloney
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
>> Jamie Rosen wrote:
>> >
>> > But how would that, or anything else, be a *disadvantage*? And
>> > please, come up with something a touch more concrete than "because
>> > it sucks very hard." *How* does it suck?
>>
>> That's *obvious* for those of us who engage in role playing gaming.
>> Board gamers like you will never get it, and that's just how it is.
>> Go cry.
>
> For a constructive response...the one thing that will be nearly
> impossible for someone with distinctive features is to simply "blend
> in" to the crowd.
Even if not sneaking, it can be a problem. Enemy hires assassins who
always manage to zero in on the guy real fast. Why? Because he's so easy
to spot.
David Johnston
>
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> > Jamie Rosen wrote:
> > >
> > > But how would that, or anything else, be a *disadvantage*? And please,
> > > come up with something a touch more concrete than "because it sucks very
> > > hard." *How* does it suck?
> >
> > That's *obvious* for those of us who engage in role playing gaming.
> > Board gamers like you will never get it, and that's just how it is. Go
> > cry.
>
> For a constructive response...the one thing that will be nearly impossible for
> someone with distinctive features is to simply "blend in" to the crowd.
Which would indicate of course that the absolute maximum point total for a
distinctive feature (that is only distinctive) would be 5 points, because
Albinism is 10. And about the only thing that would qualify it for the
would be something like facial tattoos or horns at your temples.
David Johnston
I don't think that's a meaningful issue. Assassins find the hero
when the GM wants assassins to find the hero.
Antoni Ten Monrós
> Which would indicate of course that the absolute maximum point total
for a
> distinctive feature (that is only distinctive) would be 5 points, because
> Albinism is 10. And about the only thing that would qualify it for the
> would be something like facial tattoos or horns at your temples.
Well, I had quite a lot of characters with distinctive features, and
always treated them as quirks. Oh, and exotic hair colors can be a kind
of distinctive feature. Imagine a redhead chineese for example...
prometheus
> No, those are the *bad* kind of disadvantages, because they rely on
> the player to work. A player can take a behavioral disad like Stubborn
> and then cheat by not having his character be any more stubborn than
> the average person - so he's gotten away with getting free points.
>
> If the GM protests, he and the player can have a long argument about
> exactly *how* stubborn you have to be to qualify for the Stubborn
> disadvantage and the compensatory points you get for it.
> No, GURPS does not need more mental disads, rather I think they should
> be struck from the game. Advance compensation for traits which boil
> down to changing the probabilities of various kinds of behaviour (e.g.
> Stubborn doesn't make you be stubborn *always*, 100% of the time, it
> only requires you to be "significantly" more stubborn than the average
> person - you can have the Stubborn disad yet behave, some of the time,
> in a non-Stubborn way).
>
> The advance compensation system only works properly for the *real*
> disads, those that rely on the GM to enforce suckiness (remember: "You
> don't see anything, because you're blind").
>
> Out there, outside this group, GURPS has a rather bad reputation, and
> while many of the reasons for this are due to misinformation ("GURPS
> is complicated"), one of the aspects of this bad reputation, one that
> GURPS fully deserves, is that you can load up on behavior-modifying
> disadvantages to make your character more powerful. Ever notice how,
> when non-GURPS users criticize the GURPS character creation system,
> they always talk about the mental disads (even if they often fail to
> specify mental), about how it's stupid that your character becomes
> more powerful because he's Stubborn or Lazy or Impulsive or Addicted
> to Tobacco. They almost never complain about the other kinds of disads
> (because those other disads are *real*, and that is intuitively
> obvious to non-GURPS users).
You make some excellent points here. I have felt the same way for
some time now. The problem isn't so much that these can't be
disadvantages, but that, because they rely on the player, and the
player doesn't usually want to deliberately cripple the character if
has has a choice, they usually won't be played as disadvantages. I
also notice that you are careful to talk about the advanced
compensation system and I wanted to address that. While these
advantages rarely work out with the advanced compensation system, it
might be reasonable to allow players to list these mental disads under
character background. No points for them initially, but, if actually
played as disads the GM can, during adventures, choose to award points
for good role playing. The player who voluntarily chooses to cripple
himself in these ways can still be rewarded by doing so, while the
player who uses these as an opportunity to get free points doesn't
actually get anything out of them (since rolke playing points are
awarded at the judgement of the GM).
Bill Seurer
> While these
> advantages rarely work out with the advanced compensation system, it
> might be reasonable to allow players to list these mental disads under
> character background. No points for them initially, but, if actually
> played as disads the GM can, during adventures, choose to award points
> for good role playing. The player who voluntarily chooses to cripple
> himself in these ways can still be rewarded by doing so, while the
> player who uses these as an opportunity to get free points doesn't
> actually get anything out of them (since rolke playing points are
> awarded at the judgement of the GM).
See the compendium for the "No points for disads" sidebar.
Joachim Schipper
earlier. Too many newsgroups for my sanity.]
"Christ's Soldiers" <christs...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:Xns93D1E629A5D8Fch...@130.133.1.4...
> Xuinjan Xuiger (Shin-John Wee-Gur)
<snip!>
> SKILLS
> Boating-14 [DX+1] (4 points)
> Fishing-15 [IQ+4] (8 points)
> Jitte/Sai-15 [DX+2] (8 points)
> Net-15 [DX+2] (16 points)
> Netmaking-14 [DX+1] (2 points)
> Spear Throwing-16 [DX+3] (8 points)
> Spear-15 [DX+2] (8 points)
> Tattooing-14 [IQ+3] (8 points)
> Thrown Weapon(net)-16 [DX+3] (8 points)
Umm, unless I am *very* mistaken, there is no such skill as thrown weapon
(net). That is covered by the Net skill, instead. Saves some points (and,
maybe, equipment)...
(On a side note, are you sure he needs that much combat skills if he's just
an ordinary fisherman? But that's beside the point.)
<snip!>
> POSSESSIONS (OTHER)
> 1 Fishing gear (rod, reel, tackle, etc.) [7 lb]
> 1 Pouch, small (will hold 3 lbs) [0 lb]
Doesn't he need personal basics? I don't know what the general Asian policy
towards sailors was, but I'd be genuinely surprised if they provided
*everything* for them when they came on board.
>
> SUMMARY
> Attributes: 60
> Advantages: 15
> Disadvantages: -40
> Quirks: -5
> Skills: 70
> Possessions - Total Carried Weight: 20
> Possessions - Total Weight: 20
>
>
> Printed using Aquarius Creations' GURPS® Character GURU.
> Copyright © 1989 Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. All rights
> reserved.
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 14-8-03
Christ's Soldiers
<_remove.this.to.resp...@wanadoo.nl> and verily he
spoke saying news:3f3fe03f$0$45388$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl:
> [Excuse me for responding to such an old post - I couldn't read it
> any earlier. Too many newsgroups for my sanity.]
>> Thrown Weapon(net)-16 [DX+3] (8 points)
>
> Umm, unless I am *very* mistaken, there is no such skill as thrown
> weapon (net). That is covered by the Net skill, instead. Saves
> some points (and, maybe, equipment)...
Oh really? Thanks I'll fix that.
> (On a side note, are you sure he needs that much combat skills if
> he's just an ordinary fisherman? But that's beside the point.)
Well his only combat skill "really" is Jitte/Sie. The net and spear
are fishing skills in his culture that happen to have another use ;)
>> POSSESSIONS (OTHER)
>> 1 Fishing gear (rod, reel, tackle, etc.) [7 lb]
>> 1 Pouch, small (will hold 3 lbs) [0 lb]
>
> Doesn't he need personal basics? I don't know what the general
> Asian policy towards sailors was, but I'd be genuinely surprised
> if they provided *everything* for them when they came on board.
It's his character story. He was ship wrecked and found ashore miles
from home with nothing. Hence the poor disadvantage. The guy has no
shirt for cryin out loud! lol
--
John
Joachim Schipper
> The word of the Lord came to "Joachim Schipper"
> <_remove.this.to.resp...@wanadoo.nl> and verily he
> spoke saying news:3f3fe03f$0$45388$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> > [Excuse me for responding to such an old post - I couldn't read it
> > any earlier. Too many newsgroups for my sanity.]
>
>
> >> Thrown Weapon(net)-16 [DX+3] (8 points)
> >
> > Umm, unless I am *very* mistaken, there is no such skill as thrown
> > weapon (net). That is covered by the Net skill, instead. Saves
> > some points (and, maybe, equipment)...
>
> Oh really? Thanks I'll fix that.
You really should look it up, though - I'm pretty sure, but it's been a long
time since I read it and I never considered using that skill.
> > (On a side note, are you sure he needs that much combat skills if
> > he's just an ordinary fisherman? But that's beside the point.)
>
> Well his only combat skill "really" is Jitte/Sie. The net and spear
> are fishing skills in his culture that happen to have another use ;)
Do you really allow him to get those as combat skills, then? 'Spear' covers
much more than fishing, for example parrying (most people don't parry when
fishing - then again, this *is* fantasy...), knowing where to hit people,
feinting... none of those skills are much good against fish. I'd go with an
alternate form of Fishing skill, but it's your choice - if it makes for a
better game, who am I to disagree?
> >> POSSESSIONS (OTHER)
> >> 1 Fishing gear (rod, reel, tackle, etc.) [7 lb]
> >> 1 Pouch, small (will hold 3 lbs) [0 lb]
> >
> > Doesn't he need personal basics? I don't know what the general
> > Asian policy towards sailors was, but I'd be genuinely surprised
> > if they provided *everything* for them when they came on board.
>
> It's his character story. He was ship wrecked and found ashore miles
> from home with nothing. Hence the poor disadvantage. The guy has no
> shirt for cryin out loud! lol
Ah... I see. Quite a problem, I imagine. He'll have to buy off the disad
pretty soon, maybe - he's quite skilled, and might be able to get a good job
soon.
Joachim
Christ's Soldiers
> "Christ's Soldiers" <christs...@hotmail.com> schreef in
> bericht news:Xns93DBAB95AC1Bch...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> The word of the Lord came to "Joachim Schipper"
>> <_remove.this.to.resp...@wanadoo.nl> and verily
>> he spoke saying news:3f3fe03f$0$45388$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>> > (On a side note, are you sure he needs that much combat skills
>> Well his only combat skill "really" is Jitte/Sie. The net and
>> spear are fishing skills in his culture that happen to have
>> another use ;)
>
> Do you really allow him to get those as combat skills, then?
I also allowed this extra aspect of the weapons due to part of the
back story. He was "taken under wing" By a respected elder in the
village, also a fisherman, and retired military man. He also took the
martial art Jujitsu now that he gets the 8 points for giving up the
net throwing
>> It's his character story. He was ship wrecked and found ashore
>> miles from home with nothing. Hence the poor disadvantage. The
>> guy has no shirt for cryin out loud! lol
>
> Ah... I see. Quite a problem, I imagine. He'll have to buy off the
> disad pretty soon, maybe - he's quite skilled, and might be able
> to get a good job soon.
Well this guy is skilled, and very useful to the part. As such they
have supported him entirely. Funny thing is though, this guy is the
most experienced of all my player and really role plays this
character hardore. In battle he hardly does anything but run around
shouting philiosphical statements and taunting his foes to "set them
up" for his comrades. Anyone lucky enough (or foolish enough) to
catch him soon finds themselves trapped in a net and impailed by a
three pronged spear, ouchy. He is a great character.
--
-John
http://www.geocities.com/christssoldiers
http://www.tombstones.org.uk/~jbaker