4th edition didn't solve my gripes...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
(90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point total
of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1 point) in a
very hard skill to have a skill of 7 (still a 16.2% chance of success),
and that's not very likely to happen since if a skill is important
enough to matter and couldn't be done by another character, a few extra
points (7 more) would triple the chance of success to 50%.

I think it would be nice if more of the probability curve was used as
it'd give more room for character development instead of further
increasing the desire to generalize after a certain point.

Ways I can think of... Default attribute of 8 - offsets the point where
generalization occurs.
2d12 instead of 3d6. Sacriligous, but also removes the steep hump the
GURPS probablity curve uses while increasing the maximum the dice can
land on by 4. The new "average" is 13, which makes advancing past that
point more important.

I thought I'd post here for some thoughts and discussion on the matter.
Try and keep the flames to a minimum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 04:50:28 GMT, Mylon <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:

>GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
>skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
>(90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point total
>of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1 point) in a
>very hard skill to have a skill of 7 (still a 16.2% chance of success),
>and that's not very likely to happen since if a skill is important
>enough to matter and couldn't be done by another character, a few extra
> points (7 more) would triple the chance of success to 50%.
>
>I think it would be nice if more of the probability curve was used as
>it'd give more room for character development instead of further
>increasing the desire to generalize after a certain point.

Seems to me that you are willfully ignoring the fact that most rolls
either do have modifiers or are skill versus skill rolls. People who
think 14 is enough and go generalise will find themselves not having
such an easy time as soon as they run into a typical pair of
handcuffs, trying to make a head shot, or trying to out strategise
the orcish Napoleon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

>>>>> "M" == Mylon <someone@somewhere.com> writes:

M> Ways I can think of... Default attribute of 8 - offsets the
M> point where generalization occurs.

Ignoring for the moment whether that generalization is a good or bad
thing, why not just give fewer points? Rolls against HT, Perception,
and Will become substantially less likely for an average (stat =
default) character to succeed at. If you alter the default attribute
from 10 to 8, you're basically telling your players that they need to
spend 120 points in order for their characters to be minimally
competent and to have a reasonable chance of survival.

M> 2d12 instead of 3d6. Sacriligous, but also removes the steep
M> hump the GURPS probablity curve uses while increasing the
M> maximum the dice can land on by 4. The new "average" is 13,
M> which makes advancing past that point more important.

If you like either, make it happen in your games. While 2d12 does
increase the range of results, it also alters the probability curve,
meaning that rolls will have more variance, which makes each point of
skill less valuable - but you're spending the same number of character
points on it. That will produce just as much pressure to generalize -
it's just that the pressure will come when skills give an 80% chance
of success rather than a 90% chance of success.

I think the pressure to generalize that you're seeing comes
principally from the skill cost progression: the first level costs you
1 point, the second costs you a total of 2, the third costs you a
total of 4, and subsequent cost you 4. What that means is that once
you've spent 4 points on a skill, you get to choose: do you spend 4
points to get +1 to that skill, or do you spend 1 point on each of 4
skills to raise them from their default level?

If you start all attributes at 8, that means that most defaults are
going to start in the range of 3 to 5, which means that the initial
point in a new skill makes an enormous difference: it brings that
number up to the range of 6 to 8. (Defaults are almost completely
useless for ordinary characters, which is yet another reason for the
player to boost the character's stats to average levels.) So the
player is better off putting an additional point into a *different*
skill - because getting a different useful skill from the 3-5 range to
the 6-8 range is more useful than getting the first useful skill from
the 6-8 range to the 7-9 range.

And the same thing applies when you've swapped out 3d6 for 2d12. I
think you're anticipating that a player will go for the diminishing
returns on 4 points/+1 to a skill in order to get it marginally
better; but the increased variance means that each additional level of
skill is less useful than it would be with 3d6, and once you hit the
skill level range where you're paying 4 points per level, it's often
more effective to pick up the 4 additional skills rather than to pick
up an additional level in one skill.

So -- still ignoring whether generalization is a good or a bad thing
-- I think reducing default attributes to 8 and changing the die roll
mechanics from 3d6 to 2d12 will produce at least as much pressure to
generalize as the current rules do. Changing the skill cost
progression so that it flattens at 2 points per level rather than 4
points per level, or making the skill cost function quadratic (as Ars
Magica does: going from level n to n+1 costs n+1 skill points, for a
total of (n^2 + n)/2) will probably have more of the effects that you
want; the former will nudge characters towards powerful skills,
reducing the pressure to specialize, while the latter will increase
the pressure to generalize substantially, but will keep skill points
low. The danger is that the former devalues attributes and the latter
overvalues them, both situations that would skew the skill level
distribution in standard GURPS.

In short: I don't think either of your modifications would have the
effect you seem to want it to have.

Charlton

--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

I don't see where the changes you suggest have any superior advantages
to what already is in existance as a very playable method. Therefore,
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Roger

Mylon wrote:
> GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
> skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
> (90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point total
> of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1 point) in a
> very hard skill to have a skill of 7 (still a 16.2% chance of success),
> and that's not very likely to happen since if a skill is important
> enough to matter and couldn't be done by another character, a few extra
> points (7 more) would triple the chance of success to 50%.
>
> I think it would be nice if more of the probability curve was used as
> it'd give more room for character development instead of further
> increasing the desire to generalize after a certain point.
>
> Ways I can think of... Default attribute of 8 - offsets the point where
> generalization occurs.
> 2d12 instead of 3d6. Sacriligous, but also removes the steep hump the
> GURPS probablity curve uses while increasing the maximum the dice can
> land on by 4. The new "average" is 13, which makes advancing past that
> point more important.
>
> I thought I'd post here for some thoughts and discussion on the matter.
> Try and keep the flames to a minimum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Mylon wrote:
> GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
> skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
> (90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point total
> of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1 point) in a

Which is realistic as I see it, because in GURPS the unmodified value
is for routine tasks. In real life you have a better than 90% chance
in succeeding in your routine. You don't even think about it, you
simply do it.

Greetings,
Johannes

--
http://www.5sl.org/~bretscher/mert/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"Mylon" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
newsQQtd.134571$6w6.119573@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
> skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
> (90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point total of
> 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1 point) in a very
> hard skill to have a skill of 7 (still a 16.2% chance of success), and
> that's not very likely to happen since if a skill is important enough to
> matter and couldn't be done by another character, a few extra points (7
> more) would triple the chance of success to 50%.
>
> I think it would be nice if more of the probability curve was used as it'd
> give more room for character development instead of further increasing the
> desire to generalize after a certain point.

I sort of agree, but I think you've got to let people have a decent chance
of succeeding or the game doesn't work. If everyone is going around with
skills of 7, no one will ever be able to do anything.

IMHO the problem with GURPS is that there is only 4 steps from 50% and 91%.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 04:50:28 GMT, Mylon <someone@somewhere.com> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
> skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
> (90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point total
> of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1 point) in a
> very hard skill to have a skill of 7 (still a 16.2% chance of success),
> and that's not very likely to happen since if a skill is important
> enough to matter and couldn't be done by another character, a few extra
> points (7 more) would triple the chance of success to 50%.

So?

> I think it would be nice if more of the probability curve was used as
> it'd give more room for character development instead of further
> increasing the desire to generalize after a certain point.
>
> Ways I can think of... Default attribute of 8 - offsets the point where
> generalization occurs.

And makes the average joe incompetent unless the base task is at +2,
at which point you're back where you started.

> 2d12 instead of 3d6. Sacriligous, but also removes the steep hump the
> GURPS probablity curve uses while increasing the maximum the dice can
> land on by 4. The new "average" is 13, which makes advancing past that
> point more important.

It also ruins the useful rule of thumb that 3d6 has - across the
mid-range a +-2 doubles success or halves failure chances. Also, IMO
it won't make a difference to generalisation - once you're somewhat
competent (13-15) it's really hard to become truely awesome (you need
to be up around 20 to get a ~90% success chance), so why try?

Basically, both these suggestions make it really hard to have decently
competent characters. They make the average joe useless, so he'll have
to be made on more points, at which point so will heroic characters,
and in the first case you're back where you started. In the second
case you'll see the odd 'ultimate master' who has one or two skills at
~20, and a whole bunch of guys with a few skills in the 15-16 range
who are only somewhat useless. Unless there are lots of points
floating around it'll feel like a 50-point game does now. If that's
what you want, why not just use fewer points?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> Seems to me that you are willfully ignoring the fact that most rolls
> either do have modifiers or are skill versus skill rolls. People who
> think 14 is enough and go generalise will find themselves not having
> such an easy time as soon as they run into a typical pair of
> handcuffs, trying to make a head shot, or trying to out strategise
> the orcish Napoleon.

I don't have 4E yet, but I've heard that it has rules for
how characters can decide to try to do something faster in
exchange for a skill roll penalty. That's another thing that
makes high skill values more useful.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Johannes Bretscher wrote:
> Mylon wrote:
>>GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
>>skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
>>(90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point total
>>of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1 point) in a
>
> Which is realistic as I see it, because in GURPS the unmodified value
> is for routine tasks. In real life you have a better than 90% chance

No. A routine task would be something like a +4 bonus to
effective skill level. An unmodified roll indicates that the
situation is somewhat stressful, or that the character is
under "adventuring conditions" or something similar.

> in succeeding in your routine. You don't even think about it, you
> simply do it.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:47:14 +0100, Johannes Bretscher
<bretscher@5sl.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Mylon wrote:
> > GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
> > skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
> > (90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point total
> > of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1 point) in a
>
> Which is realistic as I see it, because in GURPS the unmodified value
> is for routine tasks. In real life you have a better than 90% chance
> in succeeding in your routine. You don't even think about it, you
> simply do it.

In GURPS 4e there's a nice table (B345) that gives suggested modifiers
for various task difficulties. +0 is "Average. Most adventuring tasks,
and the majority of skill use under stress. Example: a Driving roll in
a car chase."

BTW, A Driving roll to commute to work in a small town is +4 or +5,
which tells us that most people do not have Driving at 7-9 which is
what the amount of practice they've had and a base attributte of 8
would give them. That means that lowering attributtes requires that
either lots more points are spent on skills, skills become much
cheaper, or that tasks get much bigger positive modifiers. The former
means the whole chargen system will have to be re-jigged as it'll get
distorted, the second option means that character will look the same
skill-wise, but will be more fragile and slower, and the third the
same as the second, but with more modifiers applied in-game, slowing
play. That's not good design.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> BTW, A Driving roll to commute to work in a small town is +4 or +5,
> which tells us that most people do not have Driving at 7-9 which is

IIRC, a routine task like that doesn't require a roll AT ALL. You
would only roll if you had to drive through a blizzard or something.
Even then, you'd get a big bonus as long as you drove real slowly.

Do the math: even if your adjusted skill is 17+, and you had to roll
twice a day to commute with a failure only on a natural 18, then you
would average a critical failure more than twice a year. There are
nowhere near that many accidents.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Arthur Samuels wrote:
> IIRC, a routine task like that doesn't require a roll AT ALL. You
> would only roll if you had to drive through a blizzard or something.
> Even then, you'd get a big bonus as long as you drove real slowly.
>
> Do the math: even if your adjusted skill is 17+, and you had to roll
> twice a day to commute with a failure only on a natural 18, then you
> would average a critical failure more than twice a year. There are
> nowhere near that many accidents.

Congratulations, you've just proven that it's impossible to
make a perfect 3d6-based roll mechanic...

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:

> Congratulations, you've just proven that it's impossible to make a
> perfect 3d6-based roll mechanic...
>

This is hardly a unique failing of GURPS/3d6 mechanics...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:36:28 -0700, Arthur Samuels
<arthurs1956NOSPAM@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> > BTW, A Driving roll to commute to work in a small town is +4 or +5,
> > which tells us that most people do not have Driving at 7-9 which is
>
> IIRC, a routine task like that doesn't require a roll AT ALL. You
> would only roll if you had to drive through a blizzard or something.
> Even then, you'd get a big bonus as long as you drove real slowly.

I think the example assumes the GM has asked you for a roll. It's just
showing what modifier the roll can expect to have attached to it.

> Do the math: even if your adjusted skill is 17+, and you had to roll
> twice a day to commute with a failure only on a natural 18, then you
> would average a critical failure more than twice a year. There are
> nowhere near that many accidents.

Depends what you call an accident, and what you consider a critical
failure. I'd quite cheerfully assume getting a scratch on your car in
the supermarket carpark, or getting snapped by a cop speeding would
count (though the latter is probably a failure of Area Knowledge in
many places).


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:16:43 -0800, "Scooter the mighty"
<Spambait@nowhere.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> IMHO the problem with GURPS is that there is only 4 steps from 50% and 91%.

That doesn't bother me much - in practice there are more effective
levels to skill than that, because of penalties and bonuses to skill
use, etc., and IME more precision than this merely gives a false sense
of accuracy anyway.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1slir0lngnf83bs2ccbiepn5d4c41cr611@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:16:43 -0800, "Scooter the mighty"
> <Spambait@nowhere.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> IMHO the problem with GURPS is that there is only 4 steps from 50% and
>> 91%.
>
> That doesn't bother me much - in practice there are more effective
> levels to skill than that, because of penalties and bonuses to skill
> use, etc., and IME more precision than this merely gives a false sense
> of accuracy anyway.
>

I don't see how this is true. You can't get a bonus of +1.65 to skill.
Your bonus is always an integer, so there's still only 4 steps between 50%
and 90.7%, you just may not be rolling against the same step every time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:

>
> Arthur Samuels wrote:
>
>> IIRC, a routine task like that doesn't require a roll AT ALL. You
>> would only roll if you had to drive through a blizzard or something.
>> Even then, you'd get a big bonus as long as you drove real slowly.
>>
>> Do the math: even if your adjusted skill is 17+, and you had to
>> roll twice a day to commute with a failure only on a natural 18, then
>> you would average a critical failure more than twice a year. There are
>> nowhere near that many accidents.
>
>
> Congratulations, you've just proven that it's impossible to make a
> perfect 3d6-based roll mechanic...

Or *ANY* dXX roll system. Using d100 is actually WORSE.
--

-Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> Johannes Bretscher wrote:
>
>> Mylon wrote:
>>
>>> GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
>>> skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
>>> (90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point
>>> total of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1
>>> point) in a
>>
>>
>> Which is realistic as I see it, because in GURPS the unmodified value
>> is for routine tasks. In real life you have a better than 90% chance
>
>
> No. A routine task would be something like a +4 bonus to effective skill
> level. An unmodified roll indicates that the situation is somewhat
> stressful, or that the character is under "adventuring conditions" or
> something similar.

Right, and if the rules were changed any, routine modifier could easily
be further boosted to compensate.

I just want to avoid character builds with, say, 14 DX and 1 to 2 points
in 20 skills with an 80-90% chance of success in all of them, assuming
no adverse conditions. I suppose lower total character point totals
could achieve the same effect, but I also like more fine character
development so one could improve their character more often with about
the same benefit. That way characters can get more character points and
still improve their characters for a significant length of time and do
so without becoming overpowered too quickly or starving from seeing
their character elvolve too slowly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Scooter the mighty wrote:
> I sort of agree, but I think you've got to let people have a decent chance
> of succeeding or the game doesn't work. If everyone is going around with
> skills of 7, no one will ever be able to do anything.

I look at it from the advancement perspective. First of all, anyone
seriously trying, even with the suggestions I made, is still going to
have at least a 50% chance because they're going to build their
character. They're not going to keep their key stat at 8 and then spend
only 1 point on a skill (to get that 7 or 8 skill). And to a good
degree this is what bothers me about vanilla GURPS: a skill of 14 is
very easy for a starting character to obtain (at least with the old 100
point standard, though doing it with 50 points isn't out of the
question). So the idea of the changes is to rack it back a little and
set the "average" at this optimised level.

I think a better way to describe it is how Gulliver works. At least, I
think that's what it's called. The idea is if a bunch of Liliputians
are fighting each other, giving them all ST and HT stats of 1 would be
silly. So instead the "average" scale is changed so that the Liliput
average is 10 and their stats are allowed to vary more based on this.

I'm just doing the same, instead taking an optimised novice adventurer
and defining that as "average". Thus when this adventurer gains more
experience they get to really shine as an expert instead of starting off
as an expert already.

Sure, skills of 7 and 8 will exist, but they won't be a character's
primary skills and will probably not be used often. A character's
primary skills will likely be 10-11 at the least. If you consider the
enemies they face (and/or challenges) those would probably fail just as
often.

As a sidenote, the secondary characteristics shouldn't be changed if the
average statistics become 8 - That is, a character should get ((Ht+2) +
(DX+2))/4 move so it would effectively be unchanged. Likewise for HP,
fatigue, ect...

> IMHO the problem with GURPS is that there is only 4 steps from 50% and 91%.

I agree, which is why I also tossed around the idea of 2d12 - A more
shallow curve, and the average result would be a 13, which would have
nearly the same effect as lowering the average. While a character would
achieve even less at higher skill levels, the ability to offset
penalties and still remain above the 50% mark ought to make improving
skills attractive still.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 06:09:55 GMT, Mylon <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:

>Scooter the mighty wrote:
>> I sort of agree, but I think you've got to let people have a decent chance
>> of succeeding or the game doesn't work. If everyone is going around with
>> skills of 7, no one will ever be able to do anything.
>
>I look at it from the advancement perspective. First of all, anyone
>seriously trying, even with the suggestions I made, is still going to
>have at least a 50% chance because they're going to build their
>character. They're not going to keep their key stat at 8 and then spend
>only 1 point on a skill (to get that 7 or 8 skill). And to a good
>degree this is what bothers me about vanilla GURPS: a skill of 14 is
>very easy for a starting character to obtain (at least with the old 100
>point standard,

That's because 100 point characters are supposed to be competent. If
you want your characters to be incompetent, then I'd go with 25
points. That will get you a nicely incompetent character even after
disads.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Mylon <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>> Johannes Bretscher wrote:
>>
>>> Mylon wrote:
>>>
>>>> GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
>>>> skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
>>>> (90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point
>>>> total of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1
>>>> point) in a
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is realistic as I see it, because in GURPS the unmodified value
>>> is for routine tasks. In real life you have a better than 90% chance
>>
>>
>> No. A routine task would be something like a +4 bonus to effective skill
>> level. An unmodified roll indicates that the situation is somewhat
>> stressful, or that the character is under "adventuring conditions" or
>> something similar.

> Right, and if the rules were changed any, routine modifier could easily
> be further boosted to compensate.

> I just want to avoid character builds with, say, 14 DX and 1 to 2 points
> in 20 skills with an 80-90% chance of success in all of them, assuming
> no adverse conditions. I suppose lower total character point totals
> could achieve the same effect, but I also like more fine character
> development so one could improve their character more often with about
> the same benefit. That way characters can get more character points and
> still improve their characters for a significant length of time and do
> so without becoming overpowered too quickly or starving from seeing
> their character elvolve too slowly.

Have you considered simply limiting the number of points characters can
put into attributes and the maximum attribute they can have?

In my current 300 point campaign, the characters were limited to no more
than 120 points in attributes, with no attribute over 13 without the
GM's permission. The resulting characters have skills in their
specialities in the 16-19 range, and skills outside their specialities
in the 10-13 range. It's worked very well.

-Mark Langsdorf

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Mylon <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> Ways I can think of... Default attribute of 8 - offsets the point where
> generalization occurs.

That's the same as giving the players 60 points less to work with.

> 2d12 instead of 3d6. Sacriligous, but also removes the steep hump the
> GURPS probablity curve uses while increasing the maximum the dice can
> land on by 4. The new "average" is 13, which makes advancing past that
> point more important.

Flattening the curve is certainly a nice idea. With only 2 dice, however,
there's not really a curve anymore, but a triangle. But you can flatten
the curve while keeping 3 dice and leaving the average at 10.

I just calculated the effect of using d8+d6+d4, and the flattening effect
is smaller than I thought. The chance of rolling 13 or 14 is 1 or 2 percent
lower, which is an improvement, but not a big one.

Someone else may calculate the effect of d10+2d4. If you want to increase
the average, use d12+2d4 or even d12+d6+d4.


mcv.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 06:09:55 GMT, Mylon <someone@somewhere.com> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> And to a good
> degree this is what bothers me about vanilla GURPS: a skill of 14 is
> very easy for a starting character to obtain (at least with the old 100
> point standard, though doing it with 50 points isn't out of the
> question). So the idea of the changes is to rack it back a little and
> set the "average" at this optimised level.

100 point characters were 'hero material' in G3, and better than
skilled normals (75 points, IIRC). G4's guidelines call 100 points the
top end of 'exceptional' (Star athletes, seasoned cops), and the
bottom of 'heroic' (Navy SEALS, world-class scientists, millionaires).
These people should all have skills in the 14+, or butt-loads of lower
level skills. The average person is expected to have skills in the
8-13 range, with those important to their livelihood at the 12-13 end.
They are also about 25 points. Expecting 100+ point characters to
follow the same pattern is a bit silly, IMO.

> I'm just doing the same, instead taking an optimised novice adventurer
> and defining that as "average". Thus when this adventurer gains more
> experience they get to really shine as an expert instead of starting off
> as an expert already.

You know, when I want to play this sort of character I play low-level
D&D characters.

> I agree, which is why I also tossed around the idea of 2d12 - A more
> shallow curve, and the average result would be a 13, which would have
> nearly the same effect as lowering the average. While a character would
> achieve even less at higher skill levels, the ability to offset
> penalties and still remain above the 50% mark ought to make improving
> skills attractive still.

I don't think it will. I think it'll push people into generalising
just as much as the current system does.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Mylon wrote:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
>>
>> Johannes Bretscher wrote:
>>
>>> Mylon wrote:
>>>
>>>> GURPS still doesn't use about half of the probability curve for most
>>>> skills. It's fairly easy to get a few skills to a skill level of 14
>>>> (90.7% chance of success without modifiers) with a starting point
>>>> total of 100. It takes an attribute of 10 and a skill of -3 (1
>>>> point) in a
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is realistic as I see it, because in GURPS the unmodified value
>>> is for routine tasks. In real life you have a better than 90% chance
>> No. A routine task would be something like a +4 bonus to effective
>> skill level. An unmodified roll indicates that the situation is
>> somewhat stressful, or that the character is under "adventuring
>> conditions" or something similar.
>
> Right, and if the rules were changed any, routine modifier could easily
> be further boosted to compensate.
>
> I just want to avoid character builds with, say, 14 DX and 1 to 2 points
> in 20 skills with an 80-90% chance of success in all of them, assuming
> no adverse conditions. I suppose lower total character point totals
> could achieve the same effect, but I also like more fine character
> development so one could improve their character more often with about
> the same benefit. That way characters can get more character points and
> still improve their characters for a significant length of time and do
> so without becoming overpowered too quickly or starving from seeing
> their character elvolve too slowly.


Sounds like you want to put a maximum limit on IQ or DX. If your limit
is 12, say, you end up (with one or two points) 60 or 75 (mental math
here) percent chance of (unmodified) success. Give 'em bunches of
points to up the skills, if you want. But now we're back to the
"optimization" thread, and some will accuse you of requiring
un-optimized characters.

Tom A.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Tom A. wrote:
> Sounds like you want to put a maximum limit on IQ or DX. If your limit
> is 12, say, you end up (with one or two points) 60 or 75 (mental math

I dislike that approach. I guess I'm "old school" roleplaying. I
started in 1979. I don't want to get super-powerful munchkin characters.
However, my idea was always that a new character was someone talented
but inexperienced. That just shouts "high stats and advantages / few
points in skills".
YMMV.