Would You Rather Maintain Campaign Theme or Win?

[aramis erak]

It's a consequence of what Steve Jackson said to Sean Punch as reported at Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post - Advantages Are Not Utility Priced

"To be fair, I know as a fact that in GURPS, First Edition, advantages were indeed priced for desired rarity in the game, not for their utility. I know this because the designer [Steve Jackson] told me! Combat Reflexes is far more useful than most 15-point traits and many traits worth quite a bit more, but it's priced cheaply because it's common in adventure fiction and not meant to be rare. Warp costs more mostly because it's an outré superpower, and just about always rare when it's innate rather than technological."

From this I infer that if you want different rarities than the default metasetting, you should change the point costs.

What is interesting is that, by the revised (2nd) edition, all new abilities in supplements were being kept at introductory price, not at setting appropriate price.
Conan and Horseclans changed several skills' and a couple advantages' prices, and were pretty early in 1E. I can't think of any from the G3 era that did so.
(The irony? 2e Core change was almost exclusively errata.)

Yes, I used to run GURPS. But by 3E, the player culture was becoming pretty toxic min-maxing, at least in Anchorage and its BBS-scene, and I was seeing some of that on alt.rec.frp.misc

 

[aramis erak]

Campaign theme could be "Lord of the Rings," in which hobbits don't use magic, wizards are demi-gods, and elves, apparently, do whatever they want. It seems, however, that the rules allow halflings to use wizards-staves. Do you go for it?

Yes. If the mechanics don't enforce genre, and house rules and campaign contract count as mechanics, and I see a need for a halfling wizard. So, if the group doesn't prohibit by ruleset and house-rules/campaign contract, the hypothetical setting is irrelevant.

If, however, the GM (with group majority) says "Only characters consistent with Tolkien's Middle Earth" then, it's a mechanical prohibition on that; even then, I can argue to my own convincing that Hobbits do use magic, just not as spellcasters. Especially given Bilbo and Frodo both use the ring, both use magic swords, both eat cram...

So, if the mechanics as modified don't prohibit such, I'd be sore tempted to see if I can get a magic item at char gen. Or even go full-Willow mode.

 

[aramis erak]

Perhaps, but I'd rather use it up in the casting of spells than expect people to eat it.

Some of us like pinapple on pizza, sometimes on pizza without canadian bacon, even. (I've enjoyed adding it to Godfather's supreme...)
Likewise, some of us play the mechanics, not the fluff, and enjoy it as such.
I try to keep the mechanical state, setting state, and story state interlocked, but the first one to go is the setting state when conflicts occur.

 

[aramis erak]

I believe it was either John Wick or Matt Colville who said that the game informs you of the designer's intended style of play by the behaviors it chooses to reward. With this Fire/Stun example, I'm not seeing an in-setting reason to choose one and not the other/both. Nothing was laid out saying that, in this society, the mind is the highest form of Self and anything attacking/modifying that is the worst sin imaginable, saved for the worst of the blackguard. Or that fire is held above, as a sign of the Dawnlord and Giver of Life, that fire is sacred.

I learned it from Wick in the early 00's, well before I ever heard of Matt Colville.

 

[aramis erak]

It's mildly unfortunate that the GURPS community tends not to do this--GMs should select which advantages and skills are available as part of setting development, adjust point costs to shape the genre ("in this setting, Magery costs 25 points per level instead of 10" to make magic more rare; "ST is half-price because guns are available"), etc.

as I noted above, that SJG accepted low-adaptation manuscripts, which generally had two modes for skills and specials: introductory price or disallowed.

 

[bloodtide]

So, I'm a hard core Railroad Tycoon......

But even asking a player to consider making a choice to fit "The DMs Campaign theme" is way too much Railroading for even me.

As a DM I would never let such a hole or "exploit" exist in my game. If it was a new game we were playing for the first time ever, I'd add in the 300 or so spells I add to every game. As most are 'effect spells' with no mechanics it's easy enough.

And I'd for sure find the "no psych defense spells/abilities/items" hole in seconds and add lots of them. Woe to the player that reads over the rules and comes up with the secret plan to "win"(or ruin) the game. That first wizard they encounter had the spell Psych Backlash....humm, who would have thunk. (and that would be me, the DM).

But a "Theme" for a game is way to big and vague to ever be worth nitpicking individual game things like spells.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's a consequence of what Steve Jackson said to Sean Punch as reported at Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post - Advantages Are Not Utility Priced

"To be fair, I know as a fact that in GURPS, First Edition, advantages were indeed priced for desired rarity in the game, not for their utility. I know this because the designer [Steve Jackson] told me! Combat Reflexes is far more useful than most 15-point traits and many traits worth quite a bit more, but it's priced cheaply because it's common in adventure fiction and not meant to be rare. Warp costs more mostly because it's an outré superpower, and just about always rare when it's innate rather than technological."

From this I infer that if you want different rarities than the default metasetting, you should change the point costs.

The fact they're rarity priced doesn't actually change my thing about unintended consequences; it just says you're getting some even if you don't change them (this issue by the way was stupidly visible in the first edition of GURPS Supers, where there was at least one power no one who was in their right mind and understood the system would take because it was so overpriced for what it gave you).

 

[Thomas Shey]

What is interesting is that, by the revised (2nd) edition, all new abilities in supplements were being kept at introductory price, not at setting appropriate price.
Conan and Horseclans changed several skills' and a couple advantages' prices, and were pretty early in 1E. I can't think of any from the G3 era that did so.
(The irony? 2e Core change was almost exclusively errata.)

Yes, I used to run GURPS. But by 3E, the player culture was becoming pretty toxic min-maxing, at least in Anchorage and its BBS-scene, and I was seeing some of that on alt.rec.frp.misc

This was a problem pretty early on, as showed in the shoehorning of the core book magic system into the system used in GURPS Witchworld, which can only be charitably characterized as lazy (Witchworld magic mostly was skill based, but it had specific constraints that GURPS paid no attention to).

 

[Lanefan]

...so if you don't give me a reason to behave recklessly to the point of suicide I as a character probably won't, even if I as a player would probably enjoy it.

Heh - some of us don't need a reason, which is why I usually make Wisdom my dump stat whenever I can.

 

[GMMichael]

Why do the rules need to fit the setting? Because ONLY the GM will ever have the full, complete picture of the whys behind things. There is no amount of Session Zero you can spend that will answer every social more, every social norm. The GM needs to define it or players won't know that's info they didn't have.

As a GM, I'm flattered that you think I'd have a full, complete picture of the whys of things. However, like some GMs, I let players contribute to the setting/situation, and when necessary, I warn players with "your character might not do that, because he knows this."

I'll give you an example. In 7th Sea, all the Vodocce swordsmen get the Left-handed trait for free. Mechanically, it's a trait players need to buy because it gives them bonuses in swordfights. The Vodocce get it because their nation is underhanded and specifically looks for every advantage they can - so their swordsmen get it. The Camraderie trait is cheaper for the people from Montaigne, the French analogue, because it gives a bonus to an ally and that is really the Three Musketeer vibe.

I'll let the "underhanded" comment slide. But I'm not sure that these examples show that rules must support setting. In my setting there are elves and dwarves. PCs aren't required (or incentivized) to give their dwarves the Owl's Eye (darkvision) perk, and elf-characters don't have to take the Sleepless perk. It's just an option. A rules-option. If, as GM, I want one of my nations to be the Vodocce, they can all be left-handed. That's fine. It doesn't mean that Vodocce PCs have to be left-handed too.

In the case of Psi vs Magic, I reject the distinction when it isn't clearly mechanically enforced. If Psi uses the same mechanics, same rules, and same character access, it's one unified thing with two names, and there is no thematic different to be enforced.

Your mentor hates Psi powers. Your nation issues fines for the use of Psi powers. Worse, you have to stab one of your eyes out in order to clear a path between your brain and the outer world. None of these are "mechanically" enforced; they're all setting. But you don't see a thematic difference?