GURPS default skill levels (was: WISH LIST ...)

[Kay Shapero]

On <Oct 21 21:44>, Ken Burnside (1:103/208) wrote to All:

KB>A VERY simple way to limit this problem is to limit the number of
KB>points
KB>spent on attributes. I find limiting them to 100 is fine. Also,

Makes sense - set the limits to what fits in your campaign. Any rulebook
is only a start, after all.

KB>I
KB>run with a declining value campaign. If your character dies of
KB>stupidity
KB>on YOUR part, your next character is built on 90+40+5 points, and
KB>so on. This can be averted by spending 5 points for a
KB>re-incarnation insurance
KB>policy.

Tell me, how do you decide this? Sounds pretty subjective (and marvelous
grounds for aggravating players by favoritism on the part of the GM.)
Consider - if the player is prone to stupid actions, he's going to continue
getting his character killed off no matter HOW many points he puts into it.
(I've seen real world examples of THIS phenomenon including one player who
didn't really understand the rules and kept doing illegal things with
character creation thus getting potentially gross characters but making up
for this by not handling them to advantage for much the same reason, so
nobody really CARED about "fixing" the characters.)

KB>I also give 5 extra points when building a character for a
KB>typewritten
KB>character background. (This balances out with re-incarnation
KB>insurance costs.)

A simpler approach (that doesn't confuse game mechanics with metagaming
factors) might be one similar to the one I use in typing up contributions
to Intercepted - warn the contributor that I type what I see, and
obviously the harder it is to read, the more my own interpretations are
apt to creep into it.

--
Kay Shapero
Internet: Kay.S...@f524.n102.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Compuserve: >internet:Kay.S...@f524.n102.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ken Burnside]

In the case of declining character values, I've only had three people end
up with 90 point PC's, and one person worked himself down to 70.

What I judge the deaths on is this:

Was it easily avoidable? (NUKING MANHATTAN ISN'T EASILY AVOIDABLE.)
Was is in character?
Did the player whine about his PC dying?
Did the OTHER players agree or disagree with my judgement call?

By and large, some folk buy the Reincarnation Insurance, and never use it,
A number of people did have to use it, and were glad they did.
And a few people didn't buy it, and should have.
And one person never bought it, and did his best to work down to a -500
point character. We tossed him out of the game for excessive whining.

I also don't use this rule in cinematic or Supers games. I still give 5
points for a typed bio, though.

Ken Burnside